DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on March 12, 2012, 04:06:16 PM
-
I've noticed it is becoming increasingly more common for atheists to assert that their position is 'neutral', and that atheism does not make any truth claim. This idea was first made known to me by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion where he refers to the analogy of the outer space teapot. Here is a description from an article by Russell:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
But to me it is obvious that the statement "God does not exist" really is a judgment call. If you say "God does not exist," you are making an assertion.
If there is no evidence for God, you really aren't justified in believing there is no God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not affirming the alternate - absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either.But if there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, you are, at best, left with agnosticism. An agnostic is someone that withholds judgment, that cannot comment on the issue.
-
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
-
Well yeah, that's pretty much the definition of agnostic.
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
-
Same here, that's why I refer to myself as "strong agnostic". It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
rumborak
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
-
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.
And for what reasons do you think it is unlikely?
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
-
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
But agnosticism isn't a stance. It's the measure of surety of a stance.
I don't believe in gods. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
Here we go again....but I'm gonna say it anyway.
In the *ABSOLUTE* sense....*neither* side is provable and so BOTH operate on *SOME* measure of faith. Because unless you were there as a personal eyewitness to the genesis of life in the universe...you CANNOT know. You can only piece together existing evidence.
But here's where it comes down to the two sides. One side follows one line of evidence, the other side follows another line of evidence. Both sides have "evidence"...every person has to make their own *educated* decision into which side of the argument (which line of evidence) makes the stronger case.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
I will not deny that faith without logical or empirical proof as a response to being touched by God is one of the main reasons of belief in God. In that case, it is experiential evidence, and belief in God becomes a properly basic belief.
But just because many are satisfied with simply having a properly basic belief doesn't mean that there aren't other arguments available. Throughout the centuries, many arguments for the existence of God have been presented. Whether or not these arguments are good, the very fact that so much energy and time have been exhausted shows that there are actually people interested in proof for God.
Not all theists care about proof. But there are evidently those who are. Your statement "theists don't bother with proof" is simply false.
-
You don't need faith at all to not believe in something haha. So really I'm not sure where you are going with that. You literally need 0% faith to think that there is no God. I don't have faith there is a god, and I don't have faith that there isn't one.
-
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.
Thing is, no offense, you're doing a somewhat covert "switch and bait". I really have no problem with people asserting the necessity for a prime mover. A prime mover is not a God. A prime mover that instantiated a universe can be anything really; a infinitely-dimensional property, a zero-dimensional point in space, a post-burrito fart. Or maybe, nothing. It might take nothing after all to instantiate a universe.
Theists often jump from the conclusion that there might be a prime mover, to the conclusion that there must be a god then. Far from it.
And that's what I mean by unlikely. The existing concepts of God, be they Jehova, Krishna or whatever, are with 99.999999% certainty wrong. We know pretty certain how they came about, by accumulation of human extrapolation.
rumborak
-
Thing is, no offense, you're doing a somewhat covert "switch and bait". I really have no problem with people asserting the necessity for a prime mover. A prime mover is not a God. A prime mover that instantiated a universe can be anything really; a infinitely-dimensional property, a zero-dimensional point in space, a post-burrito fart.
Theists often jump from the conclusion that there might be a prime mover, to the conclusion that there must be a god then. Far from it.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument shows that there must (not 'might') be a cause to the universe, and that this cause must be non-temporal (therefore changeless), non-spatial (therefore immaterial), unimaginably powerful, and personal. Whether you want to call that 'God', the 'Prime Mover', a 'supercomputer', or a 'post-burrito fart', that is up to you.
-
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:
- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. You want it to be big and powerful, that's all. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.
rumborak
-
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:
- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.
rumborak
I don't know what is so hard to comprehend about this. If the universe began to exist, it follows that whatever the cause of the universe is must be transcendent, beyond of, space, time, energy and matter because energy, matter, space and time began to exist. And please, stating that our universe was caused to come into existence "by nothing" is patent poppycock.
-
Aaaaand, I'm out.
rumborak
-
Something about a tail and two legs, I suppose.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
Wha?
Are you ignorant of the past 2500 years of philosophical and theological thought? In fact, if anyone is in lack of arguments to support their worldview, it would be atheists. That "Problem of Evil" argument hasn't exactly worked wonders, has it?
-
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:
- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.
rumborak
I don't know what is so hard to comprehend about this. If the universe began to exist, it follows that whatever the cause of the universe is must be transcendent, beyond of, space, time, energy and matter because energy, matter, space and time began to exist. And please, stating that our universe was caused to come into existence "by nothing" is patent poppycock.
As I posted in the last thread to no reply,
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.
*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.
-
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.
*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.
To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
-
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
But agnosticism isn't a stance. It's the measure of surety of a stance.
I don't believe in gods. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.
The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.
-
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.
Which are?
Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent. There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works. It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
-
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.
*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.
To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
Wait what? You say that whatever caused the universe had to be transcendent of time, energy, matter, etc. Some other system outside of the universe is, by definition, all of those things. How is God exempt from your objections but a multiverse (or any other non-deity solution) not?
And as I've said before, you're talking about something that exists (or whatever you want to call it) outside of our universe. It's flat-out silly to try to make any real claims on it.
-
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:
- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.
rumborak
I'll answer that, but that is not the issue of our present discussion. You said God is defined in such a way that he is unprovable. I listed the Kalam Cosmological Argument's definition of God, and I don't think it's unreasonable, ungraspable, or too abstract.
Space and time began with the universe. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be 1) non-temporal and 2) non-spatial.
Change depends on time, so if something is not dependent on a time, it is changeless. Therefore, the cause of the universe is 3) changeless.
Immateriality depends on space, so if something is not dependent on space, it is immaterial. Therefore, the cause of the universe is 4) immaterial.
The cause of the universe must have been powerful enough to cause the universe. We know that the universe came from literally nothing - not even an energy gradient (an energy gradient a requirement for spontaneously appearing matter). I think there is a difference to be recognized here between the nothingness of space, which is affected by energy gradients, and true nothingness. It might take very little to create matter in the nothingness of space, but I think it's intuitive that it would be quite different for a situation where something emerges out of true nothingness. So I don't think it's a far cry to say the cause of the universe is 5) unimaginably powerful. Note that here I really do mean unimaginable, in where we can't even grasp what it really takes to form something out of true nothingness, or what the cause of the universe is really capable of elsewhere.
And when I say the cause of the universe must have been 'personal', I think you're taking that to mean that I am saying the universe was meant to be human-oriented, or that the cause of the universe desires to interact with the universe. That is not what I'm saying.
a) The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects. Abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships. So the cause of the universe must be a mind.
b) This is a little wordy, so instead of butchering it, I'll post a quote by WLC:
. . . only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an impersonal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. To illustrate: Let's say the cause of water's freezing is sub-zero temperatures. If the temperature were eternally below zero degrees Centigrade, then any water around would be eternally frozen. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze a finite time ago. But this implies that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally.
The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.
-
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.
Which are?
Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent. There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works. It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
The impossibility of an infinite series of past events? That's a philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one. We don't need any information about the universe to realize that.
-
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.
*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.
To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
Wait what? You say that whatever caused the universe had to be transcendent of time, energy, matter, etc. Some other system outside of the universe is, by definition, all of those things. How is God exempt from your objections but a multiverse (or any other non-deity solution) not?
And as I've said before, you're talking about something that exists (or whatever you want to call it) outside of our universe. It's flat-out silly to try to make any real claims on it.
Sigz, it sounds to me like you're basically describing God as we're defining him with those six attributes, although it might not be personal, so my first post in this string of multiposts might serve you, too.
-
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.
Which are?
Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent. There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works. It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
The impossibility of an infinite series of past events? That's a philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one. We don't need any information about the universe to realize that.
I was making two separate points. One is that I see no reason to eliminate the possibility of infinite regress (other than wishful thinking). The only argument I can find is predicated on the fact that absolute infinity cannot exist, and I don't buy into that. The second point is that none of this really matters since, as Sigz pointed out, trying to use something we know pretty much nothing about to prove the existence of something else we know nothing about is just silly.
-
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.
Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
-
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
But agnosticism isn't a stance. It's the measure of surety of a stance.
I don't believe in gods. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.
The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.
It's not a theological stance.
Of course we cannot know. To claim otherwise is foolish. But given that you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. Whether you believe you can know or not doesn't matter.
-
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.
Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?
-
In response to the OP: Russell's teapot doesn't define atheism in any way, as you suggest. It doesn't say anything about atheism or what atheists believe or should believe. All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
If you've found that people claim that atheism is neutral and doesn't take a stance one way the other on whether God exists, that's wrong, and it doesn't have anything to do with Dawkins or Russell. It just means that they're semantically confused. Agnosticism is probably what they want.
-
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything. That's why the teapot analogy is wrong.
-
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.
Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?
Unembodied minds? What is this, Star Trek? :lol
The only minds we know of don't even survive a bullet to the head, let alone absence of time and space
rumborak
-
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.
Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?
Unembodied minds? What is this, Star Trek? :lol
The only minds we know of don't even survive a bullet to the head, let alone absence of time and space
rumborak
If we say that unembodied minds are impossible, then the only things that could exist outside time and space are abstract objects. That would mean that the cause of the universe must be an abstract object, as it is the only thing outside of time and space. But abstract objects don't exist in causal relationships. So you have a contradiction.
-
We can hardly even imagine existence outside of time and space, let alone what can/could/does exist there. You have absolutely no basis on which to try to narrow it down to only two things that can.
-
Dude, we plain don't know what can exist outside of space time. Why is that causing you so much trouble?
Your arguments are like those "here be dragons" on ancient maps where they didn't know what was there.
rumborak
-
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.
The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.
-
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
But agnosticism isn't a stance. It's the measure of surety of a stance.
I don't believe in gods. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.
The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.
It's not a theological stance.
Of course we cannot know. To claim otherwise is foolish. But given that you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. Whether you believe you can know or not doesn't matter.
I disagree. But it's really not important in the slightest bit. They're already discussing disembodied minds and the like.
-
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?
Fading hope that a serious discourse involving philosophical concepts can be witnessed on this subforum :millahhhh
-
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.
The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.
Yes I agree. But it's self-professed atheists who I'm concerned with. There are people who say "There is no God", yet upon further questioning, they don't offer any good reasons for having that belief. They'll offer a few nitpicky counterarguments for that argument that "there is a God", but nothing that reasonably proves there is no God.
-
Most people, atheists and theists alike, are bad at defending what they believe in. Your point?
EDIT: You targeted atheists here, but how many theists do you know that, if pressed to find out why they believe in God, would be able to come up with some coherent semblance of a proof? To be completely honest, I don't really get this thread.
-
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.
The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.
Yes I agree. But it's self-professed atheists who I'm concerned with. There are people who say "There is no God", yet upon further questioning, they don't offer any good reasons for having that belief. They'll offer a few nitpicky counterarguments for that argument that "there is a God", but nothing that reasonably proves there is no God.
Atheists don't have to prove there is no god for the same reason that you don't have to prove that there's no great jelly bean that created everything.
-
Ok wait....
"You don't need a reason to not believe in something."
Ummmm....ok. I don't believe in evolution. I guess I don't need a reason.
(although I do have reasons....but according to this, I don't need those reasons. Ok...I guess. :justjen )
-
Obviously, when I said that, I was referring to the existence of something. Evolution isn't an entity like God is.
(Anyway, you better have a seriously good argument if you're going to say that evolution is false.)
-
Obviously, when I said that, I was referring to the existence of something. Evolution isn't an entity like God is.
It is a theory that is treated like fact. The *theory* exists....
But OK...if you want to play it that way.
There are physical things in our universe that we see evidence of that we have NOT seen. Heck, black holes were a theory for a *LOOOONG* time before we finally saw one. (or, if memory serves, what we think is one)
Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in black holes...but that is a physical thing that we see evidence of, even if we havn't *ACTUALLY* seen one. Are you saying I can just dismiss that with no reason whatsoever???
(and the black hole is a red herring...you can pick any other thing we have strong evidence for that we have not yet physically seen)
-
^I don't really get this post. Of course, we can learn about things and infer their existence without actually seeing them. We do it all the time in science. I don't disagree with you and I don't understand why it contradicts my point, which is that people don't have to prove every negative possibility.
-
I'm saying that by the statement "You don't need a reason to NOT believe something"...I can not believe in ANY of those things, and not have a single reason for not believing it.
Which is silly...
I just can't believe that you're saying it.
-
Obviously, I'm not referring to things like black holes or rocks or fish, because only seriously disturbed people would suggest they don't exist. What I said applies only to the supernatural, because we were discussing the supernatural. You're getting hung up on one sentence, when you know I'm not trying to argue that people who don't believe in fish are justified.
-
But I'm not talking about rocks or fish. I am talking about *things we have not seen yet*....
You see...to a theist...God is every bit as real. Something we see undeniable evidence of all around us...but we cannot actually see him...only evidence of him. To *US* he is *EXACTLY* like those scientific phenomena that science says ARE real...even though they havn't actually seen it yet.
Even if you don't believe that...put the shoe on the other foot for just one second. To us...you are like a man who denies the existence of black holes because you havn't seen one.
And for the record, I'm not sure I terribly agree with the term "supernatural" anyway. It implies a magician who defies every law of nature and physics. I simply believe that God is a master scientist...and he can do things with science that our scientists could not possibly *dream* of...because he is (and will always be) so many light years ahead of any of us, or all of us put together. Everything he's ever done (even the miracles, that I believe are real) are simply the work of a master scientist.
Sorry, that last paragraph drifted a bit...but I hope I made my point.
-
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.
Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.
-
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.
Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.
What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?
-
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.
Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.
What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?
Nature is timely, physically bound and constricted to the laws....of nature. As far as I know, your god isn't at all bound by the laws of nature.
-
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.
Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.
What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?
Nature is timely, physically bound and constricted to the laws....of nature. As far as I know, your god isn't at all bound by the laws of nature.
He is only bound by the limits he sets for himself.
He created "the laws of nature"...so he is bound by those laws. HOWEVER....since we still have a limited understanding of those laws, I believe he is capable of doing things we don't understand...yet.
Take for instance the parting of the Red Sea. Did you know that they were able to recreate that phenomenon in a lab? I don't remember exactly how they did it, but I do know they did separate a body of water down the middle.
Now that's not to say that God necessarily did it that way...it's just *one of the ways* he *could* have done it. And we have just recently started to understand how he MAY have done it. Things that were not always understood, are now being clarified. Science. You see what I mean??
-
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.
Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.
-
Ok Jammindude, no. Sorry. I don't even believe in god, but your definition seems off.
-
He isn't bound by any limits therefore making him Supernatural by that definition. He sets his own limits, so to speak, so you're both making the same point.
-
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.
Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.
In science....order *never* spontaneously arises from chaos. Not without the help of an intelligent force guiding it. Now...this is an old argument...but I think it's a valid one.
But lest we get off track, I'm still trying to point out that, at the end of the day, one thing holds true.
Each side presents their evidence, and every person makes an educated decision based on the line of evidence that they believe is the most rock solid. I don't view one side as being better than the other...provided that NEITHER side operate on *blind faith*...(something that I think exists on both sides).
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
-
He is only bound by the limits he sets for himself.
He created "the laws of nature"...so he is bound by those laws. HOWEVER....since we still have a limited understanding of those laws, I believe he is capable of doing things we don't understand...yet.
Jammindude, I'm afraid you're misspeaking here. God, by definition, is not bound by any laws, much less the laws of the universe He created. God's omnipresence lends itself to allow Him to do whatsoever He desires. It would be silly to think that God, having created the laws and set the constants of the universe, would then be bound by them. If God so chooses, He can do presumably anything (parting seas, turning water into wine, etc) He so desires.
At about this point, some intellectually underprivileged atheists like to retort "ok, can God then create a stone so big He cannot lift?" Yet this allows the theist to clarify: God cannot do the logically absurd, like create a square circle, for example, or a married bachelor, because these things are merely an incoherent pairing of words which don't make much sense.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
No you don't. Would you make a claim that there isn't a great jelly bean that governs all of the universe? If you believe that a great jelly bean doesn't exist, do you have to prove it? Do you have to prove unicorns don't exist? What about honest politicians? Do you have to prove they don't exist?
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
Let's say you endorse the Christian religion, and you believe the God of Abraham exists, and the only supernatural being is the god of Abraham.
This is making a claim. Obviously you should have some support for your belief in the Christian religion. But you don't also have to prove that the Muslim god doesn't exist, or that Thor doesn't exist, or that a great jelly bean doesn't exist. That's not the way religion works. You do not have to prove disbelief.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
No you don't. Would you make a claim that there isn't a great jelly bean that governs all of the universe? If you believe that a great jelly bean doesn't exist, do you have to prove it? Do you have to prove unicorns don't exist? What about honest politicians? Do you have to prove they don't exist?
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
Let's say you endorse the Christian religion, and you believe the God of Abraham exists, and the only supernatural being is the god of Abraham.
This is making a claim. Obviously you should have some support for your belief in the Christian religion. But you don't also have to prove that the Muslim god doesn't exist, or that Thor doesn't exist, or that a great jelly bean doesn't exist. That's not the way religion works. You do not have to prove disbelief.
I don't believe in a jelly bean man not because of the absence of evidence of a great jelly bean, but because of the presence of evidence of the Christian God (who is not a jelly bean).
-
Also, can we please stop talking about the individual types of gods here? I'm sure there's a place for "Well, our god would do this and not do that" but in this thread I'd like to focus on the general concepts of God that are required by logic, such as being outside time and space. Things like "God chose to bind himself to nature's laws" are really not demanded by philosophy but more individual characteristics of the God of your choice.
-
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.
Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.
In science....order *never* spontaneously arises from chaos. Not without the help of an intelligent force guiding it. Now...this is an old argument...but I think it's a valid one.
But lest we get off track, I'm still trying to point out that, at the end of the day, one thing holds true.
wut
I can't wrap my head around this one.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.
Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.
Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."
Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
The best example I can think of right now is the existence of extraterrestrial life. We have no evidence for it, but none against it. Extraterretrial life is philosophically and scientifically possible, so there's no reason we should reject it on those grounds. But many scientists and people are open about extraterrestrial life, and would consider themselves agnostic on the issue, and they are right to do so.
-
Also, can we please stop talking about the individual types of gods here? I'm sure there's a place for "Well, our god would do this and not do that" but in this thread I'd like to focus on the general concepts of God that are required by logic, such as being outside time and space. Things like "God chose to bind himself to nature's laws" are really not demanded by philosophy but more individual characteristics of the God of your choice.
But all religions have a creator god and many subgods/angels. If we're all one then we all believe in the same thing, which is love, respect and compassion. it's just in different ways which each one of us helps the world keep spinning.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.
Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."
Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
The best example I can think of right now is the existence of extraterrestrial life. We have no evidence for it, but none against it. Extraterretrial life is philosophically and scientifically possible, so there's no reason we should say "Extraterrestrial life is nonexistent." In fact, many scientists are open about extraterrestrial life, and would consider themselves agnostic on the issue.
But why does the non-existence of God need to be proven any more than proving there is a God, when that was never proven to begin with? As you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially one so bold as the concept of God. Just because many people believe it, doesn't mean it can be assumed or proven.
I see the "neutral" state as either agnostic, or atheist, but not theist. I can see validity to the assertion that atheism is neutral, since I believe that is our born state. We don't believe in God until we're taught about it in some form. I can also see the argument that agnosticism is our natural state, since it's not decisive in either direction.
As an agnostic myself (leaning heavily towards not believing in the concept of God, although not believing that is a fact), I actually agree with many points you make in the OP. Absence of evidence isn't actually evidence of absence, so I'm not personally saying "there is no God until you prove it to me". My personal stance is "I believe there may or may not be a God, but until I see some compelling evidence, I believe there likely isn't". But if an atheist says "there is no God until you prove it to me", I consider that a perfectly legitimate argument too.
Fence sitting ftw. :lol
-
It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on. You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith. You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever. There is 0% proof that God exists. Yet people still believe it. This is like me saying I believe Unicorns exist because I have faith. It is literally the same exact thing.
Now, I am not ruling out the possibility that some kind of god exists. But I don't know what god is. I don't know how to define god. But if you ask me, he doesn't look like us. he doesn't think. It's not even a he or a she. I'm thinking something closer to The Force from starwars as god. Something like that. The laws of physics could be god for all I know. Either way, I'm pretty sure that the Christian god does not exist. It smells way too much like a human fantasy to me.
My personal feelings aside, there is no proof god exists yet people still believe. That is faith working. Not proof.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.
Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."
Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
At the intersection of Main Street and Cornell Place in South Park, Colorado, there is a large rock. Or perhaps there isn't. If you ask Jimmy, he'll tell you the rock is there. It's invisible, and he's never heard anybody else talking about it, but he knows it's there. He makes sure not to drive through that particular intersection, because he doesn't want to hit the rock. He doesn't even walk near that intersection, because he's not sure how big the rock is and he doesn't want to stub his toe.
Mark, however, doesn't think the rock is there. The thought has never crossed his mind, because he goes through that intersection daily and has never encountered so much as a small bump.
One day Jimmy met Mark and Jimmy brought up the rock. Mark thought the claim that there was a large rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell was outrageous. Mark contradicted Jimmy's claim, saying that there was no rock at that intersection; Jimmy said he knows the rock is there, so maybe only people who believe in the rock will feel it.
On that day, Jimmy had to provide evidence for his claim, because to endorse something that is outrageous and unprovable requires some evidence. Jimmy takes the long way to work every day because he wants to avoid the rock; surely he has some logical explanation for this. Failing to support this belief with some evidence is at best naivety and at worst insanity.
Mark, however, did not have to provide any evidence for his claim. Not believing in the rock is a statement of no difference. Mark has not yet encountered any evidence that there may be a large, invisible rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell, so it seems unusual to make Mark prove that there is no rock there. Mark does not need to prove there is no invisible rock at the corner because if he did, he would then have to prove that there is no invisible turtle or no invisible can of cream soda, etc. Mark is justified in not believing in a rock he has no reason to believe in. You make these same kinds of judgments every day -- for example, when you walk down the street in your hometown, you are never worried about there being invisible obstacles. With each step forward, you make a judgment about whether something invisible is there -- you take a stance on the invisible obstacle issue. If you did have to rigorously prove the nonexistence of any number of invisible obstacles, life would be extremely difficult. Unlike with belief in the rock, disbelief in the rock without evidence is not a mark of naivety or insanity. However, if Jimmy offered some incontrovertible evidence that the rock did exist, and Mark still ran through that intersection with reckless abandon, the burden of proof would fall to Mark to explain why he is making his claim. This is because his claim contradicts something that has been rigorously proven, and is therefore outrageous.
-
It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on. You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith. You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever. There is 0% proof that God exists.
<snip>
There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true. There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.
I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn. Plain and simple. I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.
Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof. All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction. The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance. Your mileage may vary...more power to you. I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.
-
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.
Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."
Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
At the intersection of Main Street and Cornell Place in South Park, Colorado, there is a large rock. Or perhaps there isn't. If you ask Jimmy, he'll tell you the rock is there. It's invisible, and he's never heard anybody else talking about it, but he knows it's there. He makes sure not to drive through that particular intersection, because he doesn't want to hit the rock. He doesn't even walk near that intersection, because he's not sure how big the rock is and he doesn't want to stub his toe.
Mark, however, doesn't think the rock is there. The thought has never crossed his mind, because he goes through that intersection daily and has never encountered so much as a small bump.
One day Jimmy met Mark and Jimmy brought up the rock. Mark thought the claim that there was a large rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell was outrageous. Mark contradicted Jimmy's claim, saying that there was no rock at that intersection; Jimmy said he knows the rock is there, so maybe only people who believe in the rock will feel it.
On that day, Jimmy had to provide evidence for his claim, because to endorse something that is outrageous and unprovable requires some evidence. Jimmy takes the long way to work every day because he wants to avoid the rock; surely he has some logical explanation for this. Failing to support this belief with some evidence is at best naivety and at worst insanity.
Mark, however, did not have to provide any evidence for his claim. Not believing in the rock is a statement of no difference. Mark has not yet encountered any evidence that there may be a large, invisible rock at the intersection of Main and Cornell, so it seems unusual to make Mark prove that there is no rock there. Mark does not need to prove there is no invisible rock at the corner because if he did, he would then have to prove that there is no invisible turtle or no invisible can of cream soda, etc. Mark is justified in not believing in a rock he has no reason to believe in. You make these same kinds of judgments every day -- for example, when you walk down the street in your hometown, you are never worried about there being invisible obstacles. With each step forward, you make a judgment about whether something invisible is there -- you take a stance on the invisible obstacle issue. If you did have to rigorously prove the nonexistence of any number of invisible obstacles, life would be extremely difficult. Unlike with belief in the rock, disbelief in the rock without evidence is not a mark of naivety or insanity. However, if Jimmy offered some incontrovertible evidence that the rock did exist, and Mark still ran through that intersection with reckless abandon, the burden of proof would fall to Mark to explain why he is making his claim. This is because his claim contradicts something that has been rigorously proven, and is therefore outrageous.
This is just another take on Carl Sagan's famous "invisible dragon living my garage" argument. And I don't buy it at all. I believe the evidence *IS* there. The footprints *ARE* in the powder on the floor... But even when you look at the footprints clear as day, you attribute it to some random act of chance....like the shadow of a face found on the surface of the moon....meaningless.
In these situations, I'm always reminded of a scripture where God actually spoke from heaven...as in *really actually spoke*....a voice...from heaven...that people heard. Or did they? Some heard it plain as day, others said that it had only thundered. This scripture is the entire argument in a nutshell if you ask me. I believe with every fiber of my being, that even if God were today speak from heaven....people would deny it and say that it had only thundered. So there is just no winning. There is only evidence. Some people will interpret it one way, and some will interpret it another.
-
It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on. You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith. You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever. There is 0% proof that God exists.
<snip>
There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true. There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.
I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn. Plain and simple. I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.
Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof. All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction. The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance. Your mileage may vary...more power to you. I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.
You're working off the assumption that "proof" and "evidence" are subjective. You're assigning a level of subjectivity to science that simply isn't there.
Evolution is, in the scientific community, more or less fact. I don't think there are any credible scientists who don't believe in evolution at this point (and there are plenty of credible scientists who are religious). This is because of the high level of evidence in favor of evolution; the fossil record lines up, it's logically sound, and genetic mutations happen all the time. The evidence for evolution is objectively strong.
We don't find any objectively strong evidence for the existence of God, however. This is because, at this point, we cross from science to philosophy. Nothing will be objectively and definitively convincing to this end until we find a sheet of paper with God's signature on it. Some people can look at a natural landscape and see God there, but this is neither rigorous nor logically sound.
Also, jammindude, in response to your most recent post, you're taking me out of context again. I'm not even talking about the existence/nonexistence of God/evolution/whatever it is you're talking about here. All my anecdote said was that the burden of proof lies with the believers rather than the nonbelievers, which is the point of this thread anyway.
-
It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on. You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith. You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever. There is 0% proof that God exists.
<snip>
There is no proof *THAT YOU* hold to be true. There is evidence that God exists...but I'm going to assume that you've heard the evidence before, and that it simply does not hold water for you. Fair enough. I respect your opinion.
I have heard the evidence for evolution, and I simply do not believe that the evidence presented points to the conclusions drawn. Plain and simple. I believe that the evidence presented points to an intelligent hand behind the progression of ideas...and not a random act, or mutation of necessity.
Therefore, I hold that the current working theory of evolution has 0% proof. All the evidence I have seen points me in another direction. The fossil record points to intelligence...not chance. Your mileage may vary...more power to you. I think you are following the conclusions of conjecture...from a group of people that weren't there to witness it happen....so it can only ever be guesswork.
You're working off the assumption that "proof" and "evidence" are subjective. You're assigning a level of subjectivity to science that simply isn't there.
Evolution is, in the scientific community, more or less fact. I don't think there are any credible scientists who don't believe in evolution at this point (and there are plenty of credible scientists who are religious). This is because of the high level of evidence in favor of evolution; the fossil record lines up, it's logically sound, and genetic mutations happen all the time. The evidence for evolution is objectively strong.
We don't find any objectively strong evidence for the existence of God, however. This is because, at this point, we cross from science to philosophy. Nothing will be objectively and definitively convincing to this end until we find a sheet of paper with God's signature on it. Some people can look at a natural landscape and see God there, but this is neither rigorous nor logically sound.
Also, jammindude, in response to your most recent post, you're taking me out of context again. I'm not even talking about the existence/nonexistence of God/evolution/whatever it is you're talking about here. All my anecdote said was that the burden of proof lies with the believers rather than the nonbelievers, which is the point of this thread anyway.
I could (and have in the past) produced a string of credible references by those in the scientific community who either admit there are problems with the working theory, or just flat out say that the evidence just doesn't support the conclusions outright. But in my experience, this simply turns into a "my scientist vs. your scientist" argument. Which comes back to my point. Both sides have evidence....but which do you choose to believe? Is the majority *always* right? I need only to look at the political forum to see an example of how the majority is not always correct. History bears out a similar pattern. I'm not saying the minority is ALWAYS right...but I do believe that the majority is *usually* wrong....even among the so called "wise men" of any given age. I look at the scientific evidence...I look at the pattern of human history...I listen to both sides of the argument by those in the scientific community...some of which are in the majority, and some of which stay in the minority drawing different conclusions. I listen to both sides of their arguments without pre-judgments....and then I draw an educated conclusion based on my research. I think everyone should do the same...without automatically assuming that the majority is most definitely in the right.
-
There's quite a bit to respond to (gotta get to it later), but I just want to say very quickly that this thread is not about the actual evidence for or against the existence of God. This thread is generally about whether or not saying "X is nonexistent" is a claim that needs to be just as backed up as the claim "X is existent." This thread is specifically about letting X = God.
-
I think this should be pointed out.
Theism = belief in god(s)
Atheism = lack of belief in god(s)
Niether the theist nor the atheist are making a claim by default. It is only a position of belief not an assertion.
Gnostism = The position of knowledge of (blank)
Agnostism = The position of not knowing (blank)
This is just a claim of a state of knowledge. Neither gnostic or agnostic make sense on there own without theism or atheism. For some reason agnostism has become synonymous with agnostic atheism and atheism has become synonymous with gnostic atheism.
Gnostic theist = Someone who claims to know there is a god
Gnostic atheist = Someone who claims to know there is no god
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
So saying that atheists claim there is no god as a blanket statement is false. Some may be making that claim but many are not. Even Richard Dawkins considers himself an agnostic atheist, as he states in the book.
Another example is I am Gnostic atheist with regards to the Christian god and perhaps all other religions but I am an Agnostic atheist to the deist position.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
Some blanket statements are valid, like this one. I don't see how anyone can deny this. There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with faith.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
Some blanket statements are valid, like this one. I don't see how anyone can deny this. There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with faith.
I don't disagree with there being no proof but the blanket statement I mentioned was the position of knowledge of atheists. Also there is plenty wrong with faith, having belief without evidence is a foolish position. It often causes complacency in lack of knowledge which is incredibly detrimental.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Why? God is unprovable. Therefore theists don't depend on proof. They depend on faith. The God argument has no merit without the use of faith. God holds no power if there is no faith.
Some blanket statements are valid, like this one. I don't see how anyone can deny this. There is ZERO tangible proof for the existence of any supernatural being that is referred to as "God" thus theists do not rely on -nor do they possess- proof. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with faith.
I don't disagree with there being no proof but the blanket statement I mentioned was the position of knowledge of atheists. Also there is plenty wrong with faith, having belief without evidence is a foolish position. It often causes complacency in lack of knowledge which is incredibly detrimental.
Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times.
I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either. I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god. I get it. But faith can become troublesome at times. Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.
-
Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times.
I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.
I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.
Tim Minchin stated it well
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."
-
I find the biggest delusion in these kinds of threads is the notion that somehow, after enough arguing, a convincing argument for a God is made. Science and philosophy have looked into this for centuries, and unless you subscribe to one of those convenient conspiracy theories ("they're trying to destroy my religion!"), it's fairly clear it can't be made. We've seen in these kinds of threads over and over that, when pushed to the core issue, the pro-theists rely on some amount of faith. And that's fine. I think it would just be nice if those people were honest to themselves and admit there is a distinct irrational element to their belief.
rumborak
-
Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times.
I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.
I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.
Tim Minchin stated it well
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."
Convince all of humanity that is being irrational that they're being irrational and should stop being so irrational. Sounds rational.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either. I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god. I get it. But faith can become troublesome at times. Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.
We completely agree here. *BLIND* faith in anything is silly, and dangerous. Faith, even as defined in scripture is not a blind faith...blind faith is a creation of people...not God.
-
Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?
rumborak
-
Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?
rumborak
In what way? Because I rely on empirical evidence as opposed to blind faith? THAT makes me a "cult believer"?? Seems a bit of an odd conclusion...
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exists though.
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
While I agree with you, this statement alone just created 2-3 pages at least of "But the universe can't have existed by chance" "yes it could" "nuh huh" etc.
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
I disagree. As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched. And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity. But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe. The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.
Additional: Adami's right. It just goes round and round from here. I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness. All we have is the empirical evidence. Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning. Same evidence....two different conclusions. Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith. (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no? didn't think so)
-
I find the biggest delusion in these kinds of threads is the notion that somehow, after enough arguing, a convincing argument for a God is made. Science and philosophy have looked into this for centuries, and unless you subscribe to one of those convenient conspiracy theories ("they're trying to destroy my religion!"), it's fairly clear it can't be made. We've seen in these kinds of threads over and over that, when pushed to the core issue, the pro-theists rely on some amount of faith. And that's fine. I think it would just be nice if those people were honest to themselves and admit there is a distinct irrational element to their belief.
rumborak
Irrational? Just because an individual has faith does not make him irrational. I don't think it's fair to paint those of faith with such a broad brush. It isn't as if all people of faith are somehow stupid or dense. Some are, to be sure, but many are not.
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
I disagree. As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched. And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity. But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe. The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.
Additional: Adami's right. It just goes round and round from here. I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness. All we have is the empirical evidence. Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning. Same evidence....two different conclusions. Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith. (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no? didn't think so)
Ummm. I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is. Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses. You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god? It doesn't. Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it. You see? There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space. There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
I disagree. As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched. And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity. But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe. The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.
Additional: Adami's right. It just goes round and round from here. I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness. All we have is the empirical evidence. Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning. Same evidence....two different conclusions. Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith. (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no? didn't think so)
Ummm. I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is. Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses. You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god? It doesn't. Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it. You see? There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space. There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.
And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution. Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven. We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution. Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith. Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will. It requires faith to believe that. If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you. I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence. I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
I disagree. As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched. And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity. But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe. The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.
Additional: Adami's right. It just goes round and round from here. I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness. All we have is the empirical evidence. Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning. Same evidence....two different conclusions. Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith. (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no? didn't think so)
Ummm. I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is. Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses. You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god? It doesn't. Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it. You see? There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space. There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.
And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution. Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven. We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution. Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith. Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will. It requires faith to believe that. If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you. I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence. I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.
So then you do admit then that there is no empirical evidence for the proof of the existence of god? Just want to make sure that's what you agreed to, because that is what you just said in this post.
Also, there is empirical evidence towards evolution. Gene mutations and natural selection are all seen in our world and are all part of evolution. So, yeah there is empirical evidence towards evolution. That's why it holds water in scientific circles.
-
Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation
-
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
I disagree. As I've stated, I have (in the past) brought up scientific evidence... even the fossil record...and those in the scientific community who believe that the *conclusions* that are drawn from the fossil record are premature, and far fetched. And those who believe that the fossil record points to a progression of ideas and not a progression of random mutations of necessity. But the scientists that you believe (have faith in) don't agree with the scientists that I believe. The evidence is the same...there are just two different interpretations to the data.
Additional: Adami's right. It just goes round and round from here. I don't want to derail the thread. I just don't see how anyone can make such broad conclusions over something that they weren't there to eyewitness. All we have is the empirical evidence. Most (but not all) interpret it one way...some say that even the fossil record points to a pattern of intelligent thought and planning. Same evidence....two different conclusions. Both sides exercise *some* measure of faith. (all who were actually there to witness the beginning of time, raise your hands....no? didn't think so)
Ummm. I don't think you fully grasp what empirical evidence is. Empirical evidence is evidence that shows something only by what can be ascertained through the senses. You can see fossils, but how does that give evidence to god? It doesn't. Because anytime you say you have empirical evidence that god made something, I can say then that I have empirical evidence that something other than god that isn't explained made it. You see? There is NO proof that god made anything or has any effect on earth or in space. There are just, "maybe he could haves" because science hasn't yet fully explained it.
And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution. Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven. We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution. Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith. Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will. It requires faith to believe that. If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you. I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence. I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.
These are all not true.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with faith in god either. I completely respect someone who has faith that there is a god. I get it. But faith can become troublesome at times. Not necessarily faith that god exists, but when you push it further to, God will cure my cancer I don't need modern medication... that's a bit troublesome to me.
I'd call them helpless. god gave us freewill therefore our lives are our responsibility not god. We need to live the path and follow the path.
-
And by the same argument, there is no empirical evidence for the theory of evolution. Conclusions are drawn that can't be proven. We've seen adaptation, but we've never seen evolution. Using adaptation (evidence) to draw a conclusion of evolution (theory) is a leap of faith. Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will. It requires faith to believe that. If you have faith that that has happened and will happen again....more power to you. I don't agree with your conclusions based on the evidence. I believe the evidence points in another direction, and there are scientists who will agree with me.
These are all not true.
[/quote]
It's bullshit like the bold part above that makes me want to disappear from the forum again... ugh
-
Does it not occur to you that you're coming across like so many other cult believers who proclaim their faith to be the only rational one?
rumborak
I don't know how you got that, He didn't say anything that suggests that. Also Jammindude, What your saying are things I understand
-
I'm not saying the minority is ALWAYS right...but I do believe that the majority is *usually* wrong....even among the so called "wise men" of any given age.
Doesnt the overwhelming majority believe in god?
-
Well, now we're off-topic, aren't we? I'm sorry for my part in this. I'll step out until we have a thread about this or until we get back on track, but jammindude:
Because we have never witnessed the changing of one creature into a creature of a completely different and separate species....and we never will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation
Make sure to read this.
-
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof. They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
Wha?
Are you ignorant of the past 2500 years of philosophical and theological thought? In fact, if anyone is in lack of arguments to support their worldview, it would be atheists. That "Problem of Evil" argument hasn't exactly worked wonders, has it?
It really annoys me every time you try and say this.
-
Especially because nobody is talking about the "Problem of Evil".
-
Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times.
I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.
I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.
Tim Minchin stated it well
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."
I agree with all of this, except I just find these kind of discussions are typically friendlier and more productive without the use of pejorative language.
Carry on ;D
-
Tell that to any one of the hundreds of people I know who go to church and lead very normal, productive and happy lives, filled with family, friends and good times.
I'm not a believer myself, but referring faith as "foolish" doesn't really contribute anything of substance or value to a civilized discussion on this topic, imho.
I have no problem telling them that and I didn't say they couldn't lead normal lives. Any irrational belief is foolish; faith is belief without evidence. If someone believes in god because they interpret evidence poorly is not necessarily believing on faith, as they see evidence and are convinced. The problem arises when they are efficiently countered and belief is still held.
Tim Minchin stated it well
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."
I agree with all of this, except I just find these kind of discussions are typically friendlier and more productive without the use of pejorative language.
Carry on ;D
I see your point. Though saying faith is foolish is very different then saying a person is foolish. Many on this forum I feel are quite intelligent but we all have something foolish about us.
-
I suppose the main problem here is that any people seem to think that atheism really means "lack of belief" in any gods (which means that the slimy rhetoric that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, etc, fervently preach is ultimately achieving its dishonest goal).
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
-
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.
-
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.
But not proof. And also faith is absolutely needed to believe in a god.
-
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.
But not proof. And also faith is absolutely needed to believe in a god.
That's silly. Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads "Hey, I created the universe - God. P.S. what's up, bitches"? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
Frankly, this whole thread reeks of scientism - that knowledge can only be arrived at through scientific inquiry and empirical, physical evidence.
-
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
do you have sources for this?
-
I suppose the main problem here is that any people seem to think that atheism really means "lack of belief" in any gods (which means that the slimy rhetoric that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, etc, fervently preach is ultimately achieving its dishonest goal).
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
So conversely, the only people that are theists are people that do not have even
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% doubt that god exists.
I am pretty sure that that person does not, and never has, existed.
I would hazard a guess that, since we are human, and that we have no proof, we are all basically on a sliding scale of agnosticism.
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.
For all the "reasoning", "logic", and "logos", it is still a guess. Nothing more. They may not be blind faith, but they are leaps of faith nonetheless. There have been many assertions throughout history that were thought out with the available level of "reason", and "logic" and philosophy that ended up being absloute jokes. Believing in a higher being is fine. I think there are some good arguements for it. Belief in a specific version of god, like the christian god, to be correct = :lol to me.
-
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1
-
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
do you have sources for this?
No he doesn't, because it isn't correct. That is the one narrow definition that fits in best with his beliefs.
In a more broad sense is a rejection of belief. That does not rule out doubt. If it did, then the same would apply to Theism, where a believer who had even a nano second of doubt would then be agnostic.
-
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?
-
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?
Probability? I believe I won't die tomorrow, but I don't know it.
-
I go to work for a couple of hours and I fell *WAAAY* behind.
I will read up...but I just bid a job and got hired, so I'm going to be busy for a couple of days instead of sitting on a couch.
Be patient with me.
I honestly feel I'm being misunderstood here.
One thing I will clarify. Someone said that I'm admitting there is no empirical evidence for God. This is a twisting of what I said. I said "by the same argument"...in other words, there is NO LESS empirical evidence for God than there is for evolution.
No matter what data you present, more than one conclusion can be drawn. To draw any conclusion at all (for something you did not personally witness) requires a measure of what you would call "faith"... Not a blind faith, but a faith based on conclusions drawn from facts. It's just that different people interpret the facts in different ways.
-
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
-
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
do you have sources for this?
No he doesn't, because it isn't correct. That is the one narrow definition that fits in best with his beliefs.
In a more broad sense is a rejection of belief. That does not rule out doubt. If it did, then the same would apply to Theism, where a believer who had even a nano second of doubt would then be agnostic.
Eric, I ignored Catfish's post for a reason. I just don't even know how to respond to this adequately. It would just seem too hopeless.
-
After doing a bit of reading....I can see that I miscommunicated myself...and for that I apologize. I'm obviously not using proper terminology, and that is my fault.
I was trying to communicate the idea of something far more drastic than a fly changing into another type of fly or a dog changing into another type of dog. I don't know what the proper terminology is for what I'm trying to communicate....I'll have to do some more digging. (I obviously have to refresh my memory on a few of the particulars...)
Again...I'm sorry for miscommunicating my idea.
-
I was trying to communicate the idea of something far more drastic than a fly changing into another type of fly or a dog changing into another type of dog. I don't know what the proper terminology is for what I'm trying to communicate....I'll have to do some more digging. (I obviously have to refresh my memory on a few of the particulars...)
Who claims such a thing? I hope you're not saying evolution makes the claim that dogs turn into flies.
If you want to see what Evolution says about our development, I invite you to go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
and do the fun exercise of clicklng successively on the next higher branch of the phylogenic tree (it's always on the right of the page, called "Scientific Classification"). What you're essentially doing is going backwards in time that way, and I always find that fascinating, to see how the organisms get simpler and simpler.
rumborak
-
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.
Where these two different points of view always come to a head is when one side or the other insist that they are right and the other is wrong. Always going to happen and be there. It's difficult as well to discuss it in a forum environment where typed words can't express the emotion behind their meaning and things may be misunderstood one way or the other.
-
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?
They make perfect sense to me, you can believe something while at the same time accepting that you can't actually know for sure. Isn't that kind of the nature of belief anyway?
-
That is the definition of FAITH. I don't know X outright, but I believe in X fully. Faith.
-
Oh ok, I think I use those words kind of interchangeably then :lol
-
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
this is such an old argument.. a theory is not the same as an hypothesis, which is what intelligent design is, they are not equal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
-
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation. You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex... each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next. Separate, but inspired from. Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas. It's a beautiful thing.
-
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.
I'm sorry gmiller, but I don't really know what to say after your post here. You're arguing as if this was the 1850s when there was indeed scarce evidence. It's the year 2012, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.
I mean, I have to ask the question here: Do you guys not read news? There's about monthly some news about new tantalizing evidence of our origin and the origin of our solar system. Is this not on the websites you read, or do you intentionally skip it?
rumborak
-
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation. You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex... each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next. Separate, but inspired from. Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas. It's a beautiful thing.
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
-
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation. You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex... each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next. Separate, but inspired from. Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas. It's a beautiful thing.
Yes, it is a beautiful thing. Life is a beautiful and complex and astonishing thing.
I'm confused about what you're saying here, though. You seem to acknowledge that evolution is true, and that, for whatever reason, complex things came from simpler things. So why reject evolution? It seems like you already believe in it, even if you want to argue that God is the one making the genes mutate.
-
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
-
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
Stop arguing with me on this. There is no wordly proof that god exists. There will never be worldly proof of a god. God and proof, don't go together. This has been my point the whole time. God is based on faith. God only exists through faith. There is no proof.
-
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.
-
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.
I'm sorry gmiller, but I don't really know what to say after your post here. You're arguing as if this was the 1850s when there was indeed scarce evidence. It's the year 2012, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.
rumborak
I'm not looking for you or any other member to give me a great retort. I think that your view and the view of other members who don't believe in God or are agnostic/athiest....whatever.....I think your views are perfectly clear. And they are all very lucid and compelling.
I often pass on commenting in P/R due to the simple fact that a lot of the times the comments towards those who admit to be Christian or believe in God seem to be condescending. Like I tried to imply though, that may not be the intention behind a comment you make or a fellow 'non-believer'....but that is how it comes off to me.
You and others may believe that evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt.....I don't. But that isn't due to lack of evidence or any other scientific advances.....it is quite remarkable the strides science has made. My position is based on the fact that I believe in something that non-believers don't. That not only is there a God who is responsible for existance....but there is an enemy of man who does anything in his power to assure that man does not believe in God, and included in that could be a very elaborate scientific method. I know that is an entire sepereate thread and that type of 'childish' thought is looked down upon by those who believe themselves to be mentally superior to 'believers', but that's the way I see it.
-
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.
I would vehemently state otherwise. Besides, what is bothersome is his repeated characterization of believing in God as being simply a matter of "faith," dude.
-
Do you guys not read news? There's about monthly some news about new tantalizing evidence of our origin and the origin of our solar system. Is this not on the websites you read, or do you intentionally skip it?
rumborak
I love all stories related to our universe and what we uncover about it. But again, I attribute the astonishing things we find out about it to God and the grand design, not a haphazard flash of luck.
-
Isn't there a danger to mis-attributing things to God though? That is, wouldn't you think God actually cares about you fully comprehending what he was involved in, and equally importantly, what not?
rumborak
-
Isn't there a danger to mis-attributing things to God though? That is, wouldn't you think God actually cares about you fully comprehending what he was involved in, and equally importantly, what not?
rumborak
I think when it comes to something as grand and as fluid as the Universe (to me) there is no way it operarates without God being involved. Likewise, when it comes to the evolution of life on our planet....that just doesn't 'happen' in a matter of fact haphazard manner so I attribute all life to having Gods "fingerprints" all over it. I am not a believer who utterly thwarts all thought of evolution....I would think that something as profound as God is capable of things that we as humans just aren't able to understand.
There's no question in my mind that God would/could/can/did/has/ will continue to use science and all it's laws to fulfill his will.
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
-
None of this, again, is proof. This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design. Which is fine. But it's not proof. It is your own interpretation after looking at things. Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence. This is a deduction you have made on your own.
I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.
I would vehemently state otherwise. Besides, what is bothersome is his repeated characterization of believing in God as being simply a matter of "faith," dude.
It is a matter of faith though. It absolutely is a matter of faith.
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.
-
It is a matter of faith though. It absolutely is a matter of faith.
What do you mean, exactly?
Besides, there are a large number of competent arguments for the existence of God and a good amount of scientific (and other) evidence that point to the existence of a God.
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.
Evolution works just fine without God, though.
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.
Evolution works just fine without God, though.
You see, I say evolution doesn't work at all Without God........ :biggrin:
-
It does. This is how science textbooks are able not to mention God in their chapters on evolution.
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them :P
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them :P
Uh, I think you misread my post; evolution and the existence of God are NOT incompatible with each other. That is to say, God's existence is completely compatible with evolution. No rational contradiction can be implied or inferred with the existence of both.
-
It does. This is how science textbooks are able not to mention God in their chapters on evolution.
No, the reason textbooks are allowed to 'teach' without the mention of God has nothing to do with the fact that evolution works without him. It has to do with an entire other debate over how/why God is not allowed to be mentioned or taught in public schools. Just because a major equation to the process is excluded doesn't mean it's not part of the process.
-
Really? You believe that scientists believe that God is responsible for evolution, but they can't talk about that essential part of the theory because of the controversy surrounding teaching religion in public schools?
EDIT: Sorry if that's hostile, but I find that hard to believe. Even materials for teaching evolution that exist outside of the public schooling system make perfect sense without God. I hate to use Wikipedia again, but there's nothing keeping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Evolution from mentioning God, so why doesn't it?
-
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them :P
Uh, I think you misread my post; evolution and the existence of God are NOT incompatible with each other. That is to say, God's existence is completely compatible with evolution. No rational contradiction can be implied or inferred with the existence of both.
Oh cool, that makes a lot more sense. I always find it strange when some religious people vehemently deny evolution due to it being a threat to God's existence or something...
-
I feel like opening a can of worms...but... where in the process of evolution do you guys see the hand of God?
-
Inb4 theistic evolution.
rumborak
-
Just like to point out that "I called it".
-
yeahhh.. feels like dtf two years ago.
-
I feel like opening a can of worms...but... where in the process of evolution do you guys see the hand of God?
It would be silly to claim "Here! Here's clearly when God intervened and caused this organism to die in order so that humans would exist!". Theists don't claim to know when or at what events God manipulated in order for evolution to ultimately produce humans. Neither do we assert that God had to have intervened in the process of evolution; it could simply be the case that God set the initial parameters that would inevitably lead to the existence of humans. Who knows? That can be left as an open question.
Any doubts that I may have with the theory of evolution are not biblical but rather scientific. What the scenario envisions is just so fantastically improbable, namely the coming of existence of humans. In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, (You'll have to scroll down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)) John Barrow and Frank Tipler describe varioius steps necessary for the course of human evolution each of which are so improbable that before they would occur, the sun would have ceased being a main-sequence star and would have scorched Earth. It's no surprise, then, that most evolutionary biologists happen to be theists: https://ncse.com/rncse/29/2/winning-their-hearts-minds-who-should-speak-evolution (https://ncse.com/rncse/29/2/winning-their-hearts-minds-who-should-speak-evolution)
-
Evolution is completely compatible with God, so evolution isn't a good counterargument to God. That's the main point. The specifics don't really matter.
And WTF you guys. I'd really appreciate it if people didn't hijack the thread with the actual arguments/evidences for theism or atheism.
This thread is about atheism and if the atheist stance is making a claim that needs to be backed up. I'm completely convinced it does and I haven't heard a good reason why not.
And by the way, in this thread we are treating atheism as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God", as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you want to treat atheism as some sort of neutral, claimless, 'born-this-way' belief then feel free to slap that definition onto an already-defined word, but don't be shocked if people refuse to argue with you about semantics.
-
Evolution is completely compatible with God, so evolution isn't a good counterargument to God. That's the main point.
Depends on the flavor of God really.
Prime Mover: No problem whatsoever
Theistic Evolution kind of God: A bit of a problem because one needs to say where then God interacts
Christian God (i.e. based on OT+NT): Big problem if you're trying to keep all the mythical accounts alive.
rumborak
-
Depends on the flavor of God really.
Prime Mover: No problem whatsoever
That's the God we're talking about in this thread. No more baiting please. ;D
-
If that's the case, all the better. I can not help but getting the impression that that Prime Mover god is just the bait in order to later switch it in for the Christian God.
I also have a hard time believing that that rather apathetic and impersonal god (which is really rather close to pantheism) is something you subscribe to.
EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.
rumborak
-
If that's the case, all the better. I can not help but getting the impression that that Prime Mover god is just the bait in order to later switch it in for the Christian God.
I also have a hard time believing that that rather apathetic and impersonal god (which is really rather close to pantheism) is something you subscribe to.
rumborak
The God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, deism, etc. fall under the umbrella of "Prime Mover". So it's not so much a 'switch' from Prime Mover to Christian God as it is a narrowing in on what God is.
But rest assured, we are not talking about Christianity in this thread. We are talking about theism.
-
Fair enough. I just want to point out though that a lot of things that can be said about a Prime Mover will not apply to a Christian God. For example the non-clash with evolution.
rumborak
-
EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.
rumborak
Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.
-
Sounds all good to me. I don't think any of us agnostics here introduced those attributes.
rumborak
-
EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.
rumborak
Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.
See, I don't think I could agree to the whole non-temporal and non-spatial aspect.
-
EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.
rumborak
Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.
See, I don't think I could agree to the whole non-temporal and non-spatial aspect.
Really? Please explain how time and space could exist without time and space.
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking
-
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
-
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in...just like math. And if logic still works, then there's no reason arguments won't work.
-
We don't know what was before the Big Bang. Granted the current incarnation of matter and time in the universe is a result of the Big Bang. However, without efficient measuring techniques for before the Big Bang I don't think anyone in, good conscious, should make any assumptions about what was before it. We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.
-
We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.
I need to correct you here. Particles have never come out of nothing. They've emerged as the result of energy fluxuations, yes, but energy isn't "nothing".
-
I don't think belief is good enough.
Something as simple as
A => B
Implies causality, something that requires ordering and thus time.
rumborak
-
We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.
I need to correct you here. Particles have never come out of nothing. They've emerged as the result of energy fluxuations, yes, but energy isn't "nothing".
You are correct. I guess I have been reading and watching too many physics lectures/articles. They often refer to matter-less space as nothing, the vacuum of space has energy. Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.
-
Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.
In what way?
-
I don't think belief is good enough.
Something as simple as
A => B
Implies causality, something that requires ordering and thus time.
rumborak
You're bouncing all over the place. What is this in reference to? The cause of time?
And why are we still arguing about this? This doesn't have anything to do with the OP...
-
Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.
In what way?
If you are talking about the particles, I'll have refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture A universe from nothing. Now if you are talking about the credence of the god claim. Well when there is no evidence of what came before something but there is evidence of how it can come to be. The most realistic and logical probability would be the one we see evidence for.
-
What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.
rumborak
-
And why are we still arguing about this? This doesn't have anything to do with the OP...
There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.
While I agree with you, this statement alone just created 2-3 pages at least of "But the universe can't have existed by chance" "yes it could" "nuh huh" etc.
-
Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.
In what way?
If you are talking about the particles, I'll have refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture A universe from nothing. Now if you are talking about the credence of the god claim. Well when there is no evidence of what came before something but there is evidence of how it can come to be. The most realistic and logical probability would be the one we see evidence for.
Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" is based on a misunderstanding of the word nothing; he defines it as empty space or a quantum vacuum. These things are certainly not nothing. A more apt name for his lecture would be "A Universe from Something".
-
What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.
rumborak
Are we back again to discussing "things that exist in the universe yet are uncaused"?
-
What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.
rumborak
You've got two options.
1. Time has no cause, and you're left with the definite problem of the impossibility of an infinite series of past events.
2. Time has a cause, and you're left with the possible problem that causation is time-dependent.
-
Quite indeed. You just corroborated my notion that we have way too little understanding to make definite statements about this.
For example, it could be argued that the universe caused god to exist. Please show me how that could not be.
rumborak
-
Quite indeed. You just corroborated my notion that we have way too little understanding to make definite statements about this.
rumborak
I don't know if we don't know. All I know is I don't know (and you don't either, as you just said). I don't know enough about the nature of causation or any philosophy about it at all. But I can say with confidence that we cannot disregard an argument based on the possibility that causation is time-dependent.
Besides, since the belief "causation is time-dependent" leads definite impossibilities down the line, isn't that enough to disprove it?
-
For example, it could be argued that the universe caused god to exist. Please show me how that could not be.
rumborak
So the universe, which began to exist, caused a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being to come into existence?
-
I don't think it leads to impossibilities at all, just not things that are intuitive.
Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash, I truly wonder how you can convincingly say A is the cause of B when it comes to these realms.
rumborak
-
I don't think it leads to impossibilities at all, just not things that are intuitive.
An infinite series of past events is not only unintuitive, but it doesn't logically hold up.
-
Can you quickly outline how it would lead to that?
rumborak
-
Two arguments from wiki:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
1) An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition.
2) The temporal series of past events has been completed by successive addition.
3) The temporal series of past events cannot be an actual infinite.
To me, the second argument is stronger, because premise 1 is obvious and premise 2 is a way of saying "We are in the present".
I don't know how the first argument's premise 1 can be proven, but if it can, than the argument should flow smoothly.
-
So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?
-
So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?
1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.
-
1.) Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, 2.) or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash
rumborak
1.) This is absurd. Postulating that the universe, which came into being and therefore was caused to come into being would then somehow create a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being is just absolutely ludicrous.
2.) This is also logically absurd, for in order for the universe to cause its own existence, the universe must exist. You are left with the conclusion: before the universe came into existence, the universe existed. This, too, is ludicrously and patently absurd. And to think that Dennet actually defends this position in his book Breaking the Spell. You'd expect better from a so-called philosopher.
-
So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?
1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.
But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.
and with that I'm off to bed.
-
I don't know how to the first argument's premise 1 can be proven
Making a distinction between actual and potential infinity, Hilbert's Hotel, You Can't Pass Through an Infinite Number of Elements One at a Time, and Counting to or from infinity help re-enforce premise 1.
-
So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?
1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.
But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.
If an object is outside time, you cannot make any statements relating it to time (e.g. X is young, X is old). I don't think that has been done in this discussion.
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.
Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.
-
So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?
1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.
But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.
If an object is outside time, you cannot make any statements relating it to time (e.g. X is young, X is old). I don't think that has been done in this discussion.
Here's the problem though. This whole putting an intelligent entity at the beginning of the universe when the same can be applied to the area of space that accommodated the Big Bang. I could just say that there was empty space before the Big Bang and it is outside of time and gave rise to the universe. Which would be more likely then an intelligent being with omnipotence.
-
1.) Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, 2.) or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash
rumborak
1.) This is absurd. Postulating that the universe, which came into being and therefore was caused to come into being would then somehow create a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being is just absolutely ludicrous.
2.) This is also logically absurd, for in order for the universe to cause its own existence, the universe must exist. You are left with the conclusion: before the universe came into existence, the universe existed. This, too, is ludicrously and patently absurd. And to think that Dennet actually defends this position in his book Breaking the Spell. You'd expect better from a so-called philosopher.
Why is God above all your arguments here? I would like to see a good argument why the universe can't do what you so conveniently reserve for god. I mean no offense, but you know jack shit what the universe is. Yet you reserve for your deity capabilities that you apparently don't want anything else to have.
rumborak
-
This is getting nauseatingly silly, rumborak.
-
It's a valid question.
-
Indeed.
-
Yup
-
Perhaps tomorrow, although I believe I've already answered that.
Goodnighty :heart
-
:lol
-
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism.
Dear Omega,
Nope. Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
Sincerely,
the Internet
-
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism.
Dear Omega,
Nope. Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
Sincerely,
the Internet
Those are the same thing.
-
Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo.
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.
Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.
That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.
We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.
-
Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo.
Then you're an agnostic - you withhold judgment on the issue. You aren't sure of the existence of God.
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.
Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.
That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.
We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.
It's nothing like a brain in vat argument. We can know (as best as one can) things about the way our universe works. At this point, however, we cannot know anything about what's external to that. To take a brain in a vat example, a brain hooked into a computer can learn about the world that's being simulated around it. It can't learn anything about the world it physically inhabits.
I'm not being skeptical, and I'm not questioning everything we know. I'm simply pointing out the limits of our collective experience.
-
It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.
Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.
rumborak
Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in
And on what basis do you believe that?
On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.
Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.
That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.
We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.
It's nothing like a brain in vat argument. We can know (as best as one can) things about the way our universe works. At this point, however, we cannot know anything about what's external to that. To take a brain in a vat example, a brain hooked into a computer can learn about the world that's being simulated around it. It can't learn anything about the world it physically inhabits.
I'm not being skeptical, and I'm not questioning everything we know. I'm simply pointing out the limits of our collective experience.
Doesn't our experience teach us about abstract truths which aren't dependent on reality? For example, we have the idea of a right triangle and what kind of relationships the sides of the triangle have to each other and so forth. But a true right triangle does not exist in reality.
-
The 'abstract truths' of a triangle exist only if the space it inhabits is Euclidean. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry#Models_of_non-Euclidean_geometry)
-
Yes. But the Euclidean plane can exist in your mind, and therefore the truths of a triangle can exist in your mind whether or not reality includes Euclidean planes.
Mathematicians can perform 4d geometry and obtain relationships between variables in the fourth dimension, but reality does not include the fourth dimension.
-
:huh: I suppose, but what does that prove?
-
We have access to truths that don't necessarily pertain to reality.
-
Okay, and what does that have to do with things outside of the universe?
And once again, it's worth mentioning that these are hardly 'truths'. The fact that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is only 'true' when you hold Euclid's Postulates to be true, one of which we already know doesn't have to be.
-
In other words, we can make statements that don't involve our universe at all, or are 'extrauniversal', such as statements about the 4th+ dimensions. You were saying earlier that we can't make any extrauniversal statements.
-
In other words, we can make statements that don't involve our universe at all, or are 'extrauniversal', such as statements about the 4th+ dimensions. You were saying earlier that we can't make any extrauniversal statements.
Sure, you can make statements about whatever you want but you still have no basis for them in this case. We can work in 4-dimensions because we know what it means to have 4-dimensions mathematically. We have no real concept of what it means to be outside of the universe.
-
In other words, we can make statements that don't involve our universe at all, or are 'extrauniversal', such as statements about the 4th+ dimensions. You were saying earlier that we can't make any extrauniversal statements.
Sure, you can make statements about whatever you want but you still have no basis for them in this case. We can work in 4-dimensions because we know what it means to have 4-dimensions mathematically. We have no real concept of what it means to be outside of the universe.
We don't have any experiential concept of being outside the universe, but we don't have any experiential concept of 4d, either.
But suppose we did live in a 4d world. Does that mean that our mathematical statements of the third dimension are false? No. In any type of universe/location imaginable, these abstract truths that we reach through math or philosophy should hold true: they are not dependent on spacetime. They are true without time, with time, without space, and with space.
-
In other words, we can make statements that don't involve our universe at all, or are 'extrauniversal', such as statements about the 4th+ dimensions. You were saying earlier that we can't make any extrauniversal statements.
Sure, you can make statements about whatever you want but you still have no basis for them in this case. We can work in 4-dimensions because we know what it means to have 4-dimensions mathematically. We have no real concept of what it means to be outside of the universe.
We don't have any experiential concept of being outside the universe, but we don't have any experiential concept of 4d, either.
No, but we have mathematical experience of 4D space. Once again, we know nothing about non-space(?).
In any type of universe/location imaginable, these abstract truths that we reach through math or philosophy should hold true: they are not dependent on spacetime. They are true without time, with time, without space, and with space.
That doesn't mean they're applicable. What does it mean to say "If A=B and B=C then A=C" if you're outside of any actual existence, i.e the universe?
And once again, it's worth mentioning that these are hardly 'truths'. The fact that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is only 'true' when you hold Euclid's Postulates to be true, one of which we already know doesn't have to be.
-
That doesn't mean they're applicable. What does it mean to say "If A=B and B=C then A=C" if you're outside of any actual existence, i.e the universe?
I think you might be in error here. I don't think that existence is space-dependent. There may not be tangible existence outside space, but abstract objects (e.g. numbers) are not bound by space.
And once again, it's worth mentioning that these are hardly 'truths'. The fact that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is only 'true' when you hold Euclid's Postulates to be true, one of which we already know doesn't have to be.
What do you mean by this? I'm not familiar with it. And even if one of the postulates wasn't true in non-space, then why should that affect other mathematical truths that aren't dependent on Euclid's Postulates in non-space?
-
Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo.
Then you're an agnostic - you withhold judgment on the issue. You aren't sure of the existence of God.
Nah, I'm a soft atheist.
-
I'm a strong atheist. Religion's fascinating, but the total absence of any evidence whatsoever aside from some people who have faith in the existence of a deity = it's not an idea I can entertain as being possibly true.
-
Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo.
Then you're an agnostic - you withhold judgment on the issue. You aren't sure of the existence of God.
Nah, I'm a soft atheist.
That's what an agnostic atheist is. Again agnostics are still atheists, provided we are using the colloquial version of the word. You can be agnostics or gnostic toward dinosaurs, global warming, blue balls or anything. It is a statement of the level of knowledge and means nothing when said without context.
I'm a strong atheist. Religion's fascinating, but the total absence of any evidence whatsoever aside from some people who have faith in the existence of a deity = it's not an idea I can entertain as being possibly true.
So you would be a gnostic atheist.
-
Then anyone who believes in god, but doesnt/cant profess knowledge of gods existence, is also agnostic.
It would follow that there really arent any atheists or theists, as no one has actual knowledge or proof of gods existence.
-
That doesn't mean they're applicable. What does it mean to say "If A=B and B=C then A=C" if you're outside of any actual existence, i.e the universe?
I think you might be in error here. I don't think that existence is space-dependent. There may not be tangible existence outside space, but abstract objects (e.g. numbers) are not bound by space.
Where is your evidence that numbers are things that exist without the humans to think of them?
And once again, it's worth mentioning that these are hardly 'truths'. The fact that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is only 'true' when you hold Euclid's Postulates to be true, one of which we already know doesn't have to be.
What do you mean by this? I'm not familiar with it. And even if one of the postulates wasn't true in non-space, then why should that affect other mathematical truths that aren't dependent on Euclid's Postulates in non-space?
The point is, how many other so-called "truths" go out the window when no longer in our universe?
rumborak
-
Then anyone who believes in god, but doesnt/cant profess knowledge of gods existence, is also agnostic.
It would follow that there really arent any atheists or theists, as no one has actual knowledge or proof of gods existence.
Like I said the atheist/theist definitions are only that of belief not knowledge so they still do exist. I think I know what you mean though and yes it would mean that everyone is agnostic. However I am a gnostic atheist in regards to the Christian god. I know it doesn't exist as the bible has been refuted time and time again to the point that even if it is referring to the same god it wouldn't be the christian god anymore. As for the deist position I am agnostic as I cannot prove or disprove it's existence. However I'm still atheist as i don't believe it to be true.
-
That doesn't mean they're applicable. What does it mean to say "If A=B and B=C then A=C" if you're outside of any actual existence, i.e the universe?
I think you might be in error here. I don't think that existence is space-dependent. There may not be tangible existence outside space, but abstract objects (e.g. numbers) are not bound by space.
Where is your evidence that numbers are things that exist without the humans to think of them?
Statements of math were true before humans came on the scene. Are you prepared to shoulder the burden of proof that this is NOT the case?
And once again, it's worth mentioning that these are hardly 'truths'. The fact that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees is only 'true' when you hold Euclid's Postulates to be true, one of which we already know doesn't have to be.
What do you mean by this? I'm not familiar with it. And even if one of the postulates wasn't true in non-space, then why should that affect other mathematical truths that aren't dependent on Euclid's Postulates in non-space?
The point is, how many other so-called "truths" go out the window when no longer in our universe?
rumborak
Easy, you just have to determine the truths that are universe-dependent. One of these geometric postulates is one of them. Okay, I'll concede that doesn't have to be true outside the universe. But it doesn't follow that therefore every postulate needs to be tossed out.
Regarding the agnosticism as a measurement of probability of knowledge.......what. Look, bottom line is if you believe in the nonexistence of God, you should have a reason not to. If you want to believe in the improbability of the existence of God, you need a reason to believe that, too.
-
Anyway, this discussion of what it is like outside the universe is 1) off-topic, and 2) unnecessary. If an explanation is the best, you don't need an explanation of that explanation. So far no one has shown either of the premises to to Kalam Cosmological argument to be false, and if the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows no matter what, unless you are willing to deny logic itself. Which is evidently what's happening.
-
What page was that argument on again?
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The problem is, as of right now we can't prove 2 true.
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Sure, I have no problem with that. It's when people start to define that cause with fervency is when I usually have a problem. If you recall though the Kalam Cosmological argument is used to shoehorn a god into there. Also we would have to make sure the definitions of universe are the same. Such as is the Universe the current state of matter in existence or are you talking about everything before the big bang and beyond the edge of the matter in our universe.
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The problem is, as of right now we can't prove 2 true.
Premise 2.) needn't be proven, it simply has to be more plausibly true than false in order to be accepted. That said, though, as any sincere seeker of truth will admit to (as do most reputable scientist), there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to our universe having begun to exist.
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Sure, I have no problem with that. It's when people start to define that cause with fervency is when I usually have a problem. If you recall though the Kalam Cosmological argument is used to shoehorn a god into there. Also we would have to make sure the definitions of universe are the same. Such as is the Universe the current state of matter in existence or are you talking about everything before the big bang and beyond the edge of the matter in our universe.
Based on this argument alone, what attributes or characteristics would you give to the cause?
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Sure, I have no problem with that. It's when people start to define that cause with fervency is when I usually have a problem. If you recall though the Kalam Cosmological argument is used to shoehorn a god into there. Also we would have to make sure the definitions of universe are the same. Such as is the Universe the current state of matter in existence or are you talking about everything before the big bang and beyond the edge of the matter in our universe.
Based on this argument alone, what attributes or characteristics would you give to the cause?
Well basic terms, would be something happened to give rise to it.
-
Dunno, but I'll post it again.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Sure, I have no problem with that. It's when people start to define that cause with fervency is when I usually have a problem. If you recall though the Kalam Cosmological argument is used to shoehorn a god into there. Also we would have to make sure the definitions of universe are the same. Such as is the Universe the current state of matter in existence or are you talking about everything before the big bang and beyond the edge of the matter in our universe.
Based on this argument alone, what attributes or characteristics would you give to the cause?
Well basic terms, would be something happened to give rise to it.
I can't figure out what you're saying.
-
I believe he's saying "what caused the first uncaused cause, then?"
-
Something happened to give rise to the universe, and that was the cause of our current universe. That's why it's important to get the definitions out there.
-
Something happened to give rise to the universe, and that was the cause of our current universe. That's why it's important to get the definitions out there.
Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
-
Something happened to give rise to the universe, and that was the cause of our current universe. That's why it's important to get the definitions out there.
That's what I'm saying - the universe has a cause. But I'm asking you if there are any necessary attributes that this cause must have?
-
Something happened to give rise to the universe, and that was the cause of our current universe. That's why it's important to get the definitions out there.
Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
Could be a deist god, I find it unlikely, given the laws of physics.
Something happened to give rise to the universe, and that was the cause of our current universe. That's why it's important to get the definitions out there.
That's what I'm saying - the universe has a cause. But I'm asking you if there are any necessary attributes that this cause must have?
It existed, that's as far as anyone can go.
-
Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
Could be a deist god, I find it unlikely, given the laws of physics.
Please explain...? How do the laws of physics make (a) God's existence unlikely? The laws of physics are an observation, a feature, of our universe and sans (in the absence of) the universe, they do not govern anything and do not exist.
-
It existed, that's as far as anyone can go.
I think you can go farther and say that if we define the universe as something that contains all time and space, that a cause which existed without the universe must therefore be non-spatial and non-temporal. Do you disagree with that?
-
Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
Could be a deist god, I find it unlikely, given the laws of physics.
Please explain...? How do the laws of physics make (a) God's existence unlikely? The laws of physics are an observation, a feature, of our universe and sans (in the absence of) the universe, they do not govern anything and do not exist.
Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory. In fact the Big Bang theory explains how our universe came to be using physics, natural processes. A natural process is more likely than an unnatural one, especially one that is intelligent.
I might be able to answer this better when I read a Universe From Nothing. I may pick up Steven hawkings new book to.
It existed, that's as far as anyone can go.
I think you can go farther and say that if we define the universe as something that contains all time and space, that a cause which existed without the universe must therefore be non-spatial and non-temporal. Do you disagree with that?
I don't necessarily agree. We have no other examples of how universes come to be to come to. We might be treading into M-theory. So I still say all we can say is there was an existent cause.
-
Would you say that this cause could just as well be God?
Could be a deist god, I find it unlikely, given the laws of physics.
Please explain...? How do the laws of physics make (a) God's existence unlikely? The laws of physics are an observation, a feature, of our universe and sans (in the absence of) the universe, they do not govern anything and do not exist.
Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory. In fact the Big Bang theory explains how our universe came to be using physics, natural processes. A natural process is more likely than an unnatural one, especially one that is intelligent.
I might be able to answer this better when I read a Universe From Nothing. I may pick up Steven hawkings new book to.
I'm afraid you have a very misguided understanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory simply states that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing. So it is simply gravely untrue to state both that the Big Bang model "proves matter can arise from empty space" or that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".
Again, your claim that "matter can arise form empty space" is simply misconceived; many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum. The vacuum, however, is often deliberately proclaimed as "nothing" by skeptical theorizes such as Krauss. Properly understood, "nothing" does not mean empty space or a quantum vacuum; nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, including space itself. As such, nothingness has no has literally no properties at all, since there isn't anything to have any properties. This is why it is so silly for scientific and atheistic popularizers to utter things like "nothingness is unstable" or "the universe tunneled into being out of nothing." Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow make a similarly absurd statement in their recent book, The Grand Design, by proclaiming that "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation. Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
Frankly, I'd recommend you to save your money and pass on buying any of Krauss' or Hawking's recent literary endeavors.
-
many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum.
Not so. In fact, the universe can "borrow" energy from itself, energy that wasn't there, as long as it pays back in time. The particles emerging aren't coming from some random sloshing around of existing energy.
So, Omega, care to address yesterday's point? Why can't the universe have created God?
rumborak
-
Statements of math were true before humans came on the scene.
Really? And you know this to be true .... how? From what I can tell any kind of math has been introduced by humans.
Also, as Gödel has shown, any set of axioms will have a set of theorems it can't prove. Which leads to the conclusion that the math we know is a plain human conglomerate, since there are many maths one could choose from, none of which comprises all theorems that are out there.
Your statement strikes me akin to "rabbits would have been white even without planet Earth". What sense does a statement like that make, if rabbits don't even exist without a planet to live on? Similarly, your statement that math exists outside of human conception is, IMHO, a baseless assertion.
rumborak
-
Statements of math were true before humans came on the scene.
Really? And you know this to be true .... how? From what I can tell any kind of math has been introduced by humans.
Also, as Gödel has shown, any set of axioms will have a set of theorems it can't prove. Which leads to the conclusion that the math we know is a plain human conglomerate, since there are many maths one could choose from, none of which comprises all theorems that are out there.
Your statement strikes me akin to "rabbits would have been white even without planet Earth". What sense does a statement like that make, if rabbits don't even exist without a planet to live on? Similarly, your statement that math exists outside of human conception is, IMHO, a baseless assertion.
rumborak
What you're saying is that the rules of calculus were not true until Newton discovered them. This idea is absurd.
In any logical pathway, there comes a point where you reach the end of your rope, and you simply accept one hypothesis over it's alternate because it is more plausible than it's alternate. This forms what are called properly basic beliefs. There's no way to prove that time is not a human construct, and would therefore not exist without humans. But the belief "Time is independent of human recognition" is more plausible than "Time is dependent on human recognition", even though there's no way to 'prove' either - both are 'baseless assertions'. Replace 'time' for 'logic', 'math', 'abstract objects', etc. and you'll get where I'm coming from.
-
Statements of math were true before humans came on the scene.
Really? And you know this to be true .... how? From what I can tell any kind of math has been introduced by humans.
Also, as Gödel has shown, any set of axioms will have a set of theorems it can't prove. Which leads to the conclusion that the math we know is a plain human conglomerate, since there are many maths one could choose from, none of which comprises all theorems that are out there.
Your statement strikes me akin to "rabbits would have been white even without planet Earth". What sense does a statement like that make, if rabbits don't even exist without a planet to live on? Similarly, your statement that math exists outside of human conception is, IMHO, a baseless assertion.
rumborak
What you're saying is that the rules of calculus were not true until Newton discovered them. This idea is absurd.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the rules and axioms were created by humans. Had somebody else created them before that they would have been "true" in the sense that they internally coherent, but given that humans only showed up recently, it's nonsensical to say math exists outside the human confines.
My overall point is that you place way too much trust in the eternal truth of logic and math.
rumborak
-
The rules and axioms were created by humans, but the rules and axioms are correct. They were always correct before they were discovered, and they will continue to be correct long after any trace of the human race has been destroyed. Sorry, but you're wrong about this one, rumby.
-
I don't think you two have internalized Gödel's finding enough. The axioms we have are internally consistent, yes. But, "correct" would assume universal applicability, and Gödel has shown to be not the case. I just picked up this statement from Wikipedia that summarizes the whole thing:
"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
You guy's point rests on the universal applicability of mathematical truths. All there are are various locally consistent sets of axioms, but that's it really.
rumborak
-
Not really. Godel's findings relate to specific mathematical theories, and point out that we cannot have complete provability without sacrificing internal consistency. But that doesn't mean that any of the theorems we've proven are wrong. All it means is that we are using axioms as if they have been proven, when they cannot be. This is not a problem since the vast majority of our axioms are completely agreeable and immediately evident.
-
But the point is, if whatever set of axioms we choose can only "approximate" the possible "truths" out there (since whichever set you choose, certain things stay undecidable), how can they have special status? Sounds a lot like conveniently choosing set of axioms to me. Convenient, or "immediately evident" as for example with "If A => B and B => C, then A=C". Up to the point where ordering no longer makes sense because you're outside time.
So, whatever you guys elevate to this eternally existing set of mathematical truths here, is in reality a conveniently chosen set. Nothing special really, other than that humans living in spacetime find them inherently appealing. Something "living" outside of spacetime I would think finds that "A=>B=>C" thing far less self-evident.
rumborak
-
It's not that certain things stay undecidable, or that our mathematical system only approximates certain truths. There's nothing more exact than mathematics. We're just treating certain axioms as proven when they cannot be. I don't understand why that prospect upsets you so much.
So, whatever you guys elevate to this eternally existing set of mathematical truths here, is in reality a conveniently chosen set. Nothing special really, other than that humans living in spacetime find them inherently appealing. Something "living" outside of spacetime I would think finds that "A=>B=>C" thing far less self-evident.
Let's say an alien civilization was going about creating their mathematical theory, and chose a set of axioms that are completely different than ours. Assuming they chose axioms that are fundamental enough, they would still be able to figure out all the mathematical truths that we did, and would also be able to prove what are our unprovable axioms. This doesn't mean that our mathematical system is incorrect or inaccurate. We'd just have two systems of math that say about the same thing, but had different starting points.
-
I find that statement very doubtful. Different axioms lead to different "truths". Again, let's say some alien life form doesn't agree on the sequence "If A=>B and B=>C, then A=>C" because to them, all events are simultaneous. Without that axiom, their truths will be different from ours.
rumborak
-
many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum.
Not so. In fact, the universe can "borrow" energy from itself, energy that wasn't there, as long as it pays back in time. The particles emerging aren't coming from some random sloshing around of existing energy.
The universe borrowing energy from itself? I've never even heard of that. What do you mean? It sounds extraordinarily implausible. Does the universe borrow energy from its future, or...?
So, Omega, care to address yesterday's point? Why can't the universe have created God?
rumborak
Rumborak, I'll try to not sound patronizing, but there's a reason why nobody ever has defended that statement. How can a temporal, material, finite entity that was caused to come into being cause a timeless, immaterial entity which by definition could not be caused to come into being which in turn caused the temporal, material, finite entity in the first place?
-
I find that statement very doubtful. Different axioms lead to different "truths". Again, let's say some alien life form doesn't agree on the sequence "If A=>B and B=>C, then A=>C" because to them, all events are simultaneous. Without that axiom, their truths will be different from ours.
rumborak
It doesn't matter if all events are simultaneous or not. If A is defined to be B, and B is defined to be C, then A must be defined to be C. There's no order about that, it's just basic, low-level, definitional logic.
-
Statements of math were true before humans came on the scene.
I'd say that thinking about mathematical elements (ex. numbers) outside of human perception is meaningless. Nature doesn't operate according to mathematical laws, though we can come up with "laws" that are close enough for our purposes (such as Newtonian physics). Mathematics is just a tool for us to better interact with the world. It has nothing to do with truth outside the imagined world.
-
many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum.
Not so. In fact, the universe can "borrow" energy from itself, energy that wasn't there, as long as it pays back in time. The particles emerging aren't coming from some random sloshing around of existing energy.
The universe borrowing energy from itself? I've never even heard of that. What do you mean? It sounds extraordinarily implausible. Does the universe borrow energy from its future, or...?
So, Omega, care to address yesterday's point? Why can't the universe have created God?
rumborak
Rumborak, I'll try to not sound patronizing, but there's a reason why nobody ever has defended that statement. How can a temporal, material, finite entity that was caused to come into being cause a timeless, immaterial entity which by definition could not be caused to come into being which in turn caused the temporal, material, finite entity in the first place?
I am not particularly interested in a discussion about gods that assert their superiority merely through what humans choose to define them as. That is, if your recourse to any argument is "how preposterous, my definition of god doesn't allow that", I then shall posit the existence of the mighty God-Eater who eats your God for breakfast.
rumborak
-
I am not particularly interested in a discussion about gods that assert their superiority merely through what humans choose to define them as. Because then I shall posit the existence of the mighty God-Eater who eats your God for breakfast.
rumborak
And then that would be God.
-
Nope. My definition of the God-Eater is defined to encompass and be more than your God. You lose, no matter your definition of God.
Seriously though dude, your argument is like the kid during recess who yells "no, I win, because my spaceship is bigger!". *Defining* yours to be the winner is beyond lame.
rumborak
-
Nope. My definition of the God-Eater is defined to encompass and be more than your God. You lose, no matter your definition of God.
rumborak
Exactly. If anything is greater than God, then that is God.
-
:corn
-
Nope. My definition of the God-Eater is defined to encompass and be more than your God. You lose, no matter your definition of God.
Seriously though dude, your argument is like the kid during recess who yells "no, I win, because my spaceship is bigger!". *Defining* yours to be the winner is beyond lame.
rumborak
Borak, you're trying to define God as something that would not be God. God, by definition is the greatest conceivable being, transcendent of space, time, energy and matter, and utterly omnipotent. This definition wasn't arrived at arbitrarily. Theologists didn't just sit down one day and say "hey, let's come up with random opinions on the nature of God". You are trying to rob God of his godly qualities and burden him with mundane ones. Before long, you'll be attacking a strawman of God no one defends.
-
WTF @ this thread.
-
My overall point is that you place way too much trust in the eternal truth of logic and math.
Can you think of a better starting place for constructing beliefs? Not even our physical senses are as trustworthy!
-
I'm afraid you have a very misguided understanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory simply states that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time.
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing. I don't know of any scientist that would claim that with such certainty. Also quantum fluctuations could have gave rise to the big bang.
So it is simply gravely untrue to state both that the Big Bang model "proves matter can arise from empty space" or
I simply didn't type that at any time. I said "Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory." Not that it proves that matter can arise from empty space.
that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".
Yes according to our current understanding of physics it appears to be possible.
Again, your claim that "matter can arise form empty space" is simply misconceived; many skeptics, including Krauss, claim that subatomic particles come into being from "nothing." Yet this is a blatant abuse of science; the theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in a quantum vacuum. The vacuum, however, is often deliberately proclaimed as "nothing" by skeptical theorizes such as Krauss.
You use the word skeptical in the same way you begrudge Krauss for misusing the word nothing. I don't like the use of the word nothing when talking about the early universe either.
Properly understood, "nothing" does not mean empty space or a quantum vacuum; nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, including space itself. As such, nothingness has no has literally no properties at all, since there isn't anything to have any properties. This is why it is so silly for scientific and atheistic popularizers to utter things like "nothingness is unstable" or "the universe tunneled into being out of nothing."
I agree, they shouldn't use the word nothing.
Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow make a similarly absurd statement in their recent book, The Grand Design, by proclaiming that "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation. Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
Frankly, I'd recommend you to save your money and pass on buying any of Krauss' or Hawking's recent literary endeavors.
Hilariously enough I bought Hawkings book today. I'll have to read it for myself as people tend to misrepresent things in there favour. I'm not calling you a liar but earlier you misquoted me.
-
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
-
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
nobody is claiming that.
-
Our opinions might be conceived cocky when it comes to the Christian God. At the overall concept of a god, I don't think anybody is cocky at all.
rumborak
-
Just saw this today, must post...
https://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3obmi2/
-
As before, if anybody is actually interested in evolution, I highly highly recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Amazing book.
rumborak
-
Our opinions might be conceived cocky when it comes to the Christian God. At the overall concept of a god, I don't think anybody is cocky at all.
rumborak
That may be it rumborak. I'll admit (for me) it gets difficult at times to read (what I consider to be) insulting comments about my beliefes. Whether they are intentionally insulting or not...there are moments when it does indeed feel like almost 'being made fun of' for having those beliefs. I consider myself an educated person with a good deal of understanding about many things and at times and there are times when I feel like 'believers' are being patted on the head like a child and mocked for those beliefs. I've stated before that is what kind of keeps me from P/R the majority of the time, and it may be that I can't handle the debate and I am certain that when those of you go off on your scientific debate backed by such and such book or aritcle that I do get lost in the lingo a bit....maybe that's threatening in it's own way to me.
I would like to say that for the most part the majority of you who are clearly not believers of God are respectful....but not having the ability to actually 'speak' or 'hear' the comments and having the opportunity to interpret the emotion behind various statments... whether they are genuine statments or something said to insult, having the ability to 'feel' and 'gauge' them taken away due to it being typed text.......I may just get sensitive to some of them....and that is no ones fault but my own.
-
As before, if anybody is actually interested in evolution, I highly highly recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Amazing book.
rumborak
Seriously Rumborak, I have enough to read without you adding to the pile. *writes the books name down in anger*
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
There might have been a time when I would have said that with cocky-ness.
-
As before, if anybody is actually interested in evolution, I highly highly recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Amazing book.
rumborak
Seriously Rumborak, I have enough to read without you adding to the pile. *writes the books name down in anger*
:lol
Honestly, that book is pure awesomeness from start to finish. Reading how your inner ear came about blew my mind.
rumborak
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/432265_10150656299490816_833695815_9123263_89806360_n.jpg)
Atheists and theists. Arguments are 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, most of the time.
-
Why do people need the proof, meaning having it in front of you using all 5 senses, to believe it? Is it because of a loss of faith? if you want to talk about atheism and theism, why are you only debating the Christian god?
Looking back at history and the other religious deities, we know nothing compared to what they knew? And what about the people who said they traveled through space and time ? Will you dismiss them until you have proof?
-
Why do people need the proof, meaning having it in front of you using all 5 senses, to believe it?
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence -Christopher Hitchens
In other words anything can be asserted without evidence and that anything would be meaningless. I could easily say my sneeze this morning retroactively created the universe. Without evidence at all you can't confirm.
Edit: Although not all claims are equally valid and ignorance is not equal to knowledge
Is it because of a loss of faith? if you want to talk about atheism and theism, why are you only debating the Christian god?
Most people on this forum that are theists are in one form or another Christian, so that is what is debated. In this thread we are attempting to keep it in the realm of deism.
Looking back at history and the other religious deities, we know nothing compared to what they knew? And what about the people who said they traveled through space and time ? Will you dismiss them until you have proof?
Yes.
-
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
That's why I prefer not to identify myself as an atheist, even though I technically am.
-
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
That's why I prefer not to identify myself as an atheist, even though I technically am.
Well it's up to you but if people do not use correct terminology the negative or incorrect attitudes will overwhelm reality.
-
What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.
rumborak
You've got two options.
1. Time has no cause, and you're left with the definite problem of the impossibility of an infinite series of past events.
2. Time has a cause, and you're left with the possible problem that causation is time-dependent.
You're creating false dichotomies.
-
I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.
Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.
That's why I prefer not to identify myself as an atheist, even though I technically am.
Well it's up to you but if people do not use correct terminology the negative or incorrect attitudes will overwhelm reality.
Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.
-
WTF @ this thread.
This video demonstrates why agnosticism is the best belief if you don't have any evidence for or against God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM
-
Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.
Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.
Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.
-
Again not using the word atheist because it hold negative connotations will only compound the issue and validate it in their eyes.
-
Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.
Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.
Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.
What you're saying is that the atheist is justified in being a jerk because the theist is a jerk. I don't see how the behavior and actions of others should determine your behavior and actions. You're just as unjustified in how you behave as they are.
-
Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.
Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.
Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.
What you're saying is that the atheist is justified in being a jerk because the theist is a jerk. I don't see how the behavior and actions of others should determine your behavior and actions. You're just as unjustified in how you behave as they are.
No, I didn't say any of it was justified at all. Not sure where you got that idea. No he said that there are atheists that are pompous. I then gave examples of the unjust treatment given to atheists who where not being pompous at all and were still treated poorly by the majority of people surrounding them.
Many religious feel threatened by the very existence of an atheist. Even more so than those of other religions because at least those of other religions believe in some supernatural force.
Now when it comes to scientists being pompous, I would almost just almost give them a pass. Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown. Like what Neil Degrasse Tyson once said "The day that you stop looking, because you’re content God did it. I don’t need you in the lab."
And believe it or not there are far to many in this world that are content with god did it.
-
Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.
Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous?
Duh fuck? I was talking about negative sentiment towards atheists in general. Who the fuck is Jessica Ahlquist lol. I'm just saying that if the term atheist had a connotation of neutrality, I wouldn't mind identifying myself with that term. But it comes with this image
(https://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1318759478.jpg)
... so I don't really call myself atheist. This could also have something to do with me having a Christian background and I don't want there to be too much conflict with friends and family.
-
Now when it comes to scientists being pompous, I would almost just almost give them a pass.
Yea, I can understand Dawkins' frustration with religious people who want to teach intelligent design in schools and what not. I don't understand why he had to go off and become a pop anti-theist writer though. Should have stuck to genetics.
Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown.
I've read this over several times and haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
-
I'm afraid you have a very misguided understanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory simply states that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time.
1.) I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing. 2.) Also quantum fluctuations could have gave rise to the big bang.
1.) I'd say that this is a reasonable conclusion. Just follow the evidence where it leads: when the universe exhibits a distance between any two points as zero, then that is the boundary of space-time and space-time cannot be extended further back than that.
2.) Look at what you are saying here closely: a quantum event, which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter, caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. The notion is gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.
So it is simply gravely untrue to state both that the Big Bang model "proves matter can arise from empty space" or
I simply didn't type that at any time. I said "Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory." Not that it proves that matter can arise from empty space.
"Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory" = The Big Bang model (attempts to) prove(s) matter can arise from empty space. Regardless, it doesn't, and that is certainly not part of Big Bang theory.
that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".
Yes according to our current understanding of physics it appears to be possible.
Same situation as with the "quantum event causing the universe to come into existence." The laws of physics merely dictate powers and their constants of the universe. They describe the universe. What would they govern were the universe absent? Nothing. This is the same mistake as postulating that a quantum event caused the universe to come into existence. It like saying "the universe's laws caused the universe to come into existence." In order for there to be any "laws of physics," the universe must exist. It would be like saying "in order for the universe to come into existence, the universe must have first existed." Yet, again, that is patent nonsense. The idea of self-causation is fantastically ludicrous. Any non-believer who holds to the fantastically absurd idea that the universe caused itself to come into existence could not dare call believers "crazy" or "illogical" and retain any semblance of integrity and sincerity.
Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow make a similarly absurd statement in their recent book, The Grand Design, by proclaiming that "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation. Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.
Frankly, I'd recommend you to save your money and pass on buying any of Krauss' or Hawking's recent literary endeavors.
Hilariously enough I bought Hawkings book today. I'll have to read it for myself as people tend to misrepresent things in there favour. I'm not calling you a liar but earlier you misquoted me.
That's a direct quote from the book. Oh, and I should warn you that the book, facetiously enough, begins by proclaiming that "philosophy is dead" and then proceeds to concern itself (about 40-60% of the book) with speaking on philosophical matters. And, boy, is it bad philosophy...
-
Yea, I can understand Dawkins' frustration with religious people who want to teach intelligent design in schools and what not. I don't understand why he had to go off and become a pop anti-theist writer though. Should have stuck to genetics.
To be fair that is only one book out of 10 to 12 or something like that. One of the reasons why he is the poster boy for it is he was more or less the first to do so. As him sticking to his field, he did. He has since wrote 2 more books on evolution.
Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown.
I've read this over several times and haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
Religion undermines reality by asserting that which is known to be false or that which is not known by anyone.
1.) I'd say that this is a reasonable conclusion. Just follow the evidence where it leads: when the universe exhibits a distance between any two points as zero, then that is the boundary of space-time and space-time cannot be extended further back than that.
2.) Look at what you are saying here closely: a quantum event, which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter, caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. The notion is gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.
"Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory" = The Big Bang model (attempts to) prove(s) matter can arise from empty space. Regardless, it doesn't, and that is certainly not part of Big Bang theory.
that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".
Yes according to our current understanding of physics it appears to be possible.
Same situation as with the "quantum event causing the universe to come into existence." The laws of physics merely dictate powers and their constants of the universe. They describe the universe. What would they govern were the universe absent? Nothing. This is the same mistake as postulating that a quantum event caused the universe to come into existence. It like saying "the universe's laws caused the universe to come into existence." In order for there to be any "laws of physics," the universe must exist. It would be like saying "in order for the universe to come into existence, the universe must have first existed." Yet, again, that is patent nonsense. The idea of self-causation is fantastically ludicrous. Any non-believer who holds to the fantastically absurd idea that the universe caused itself to come into existence could not dare call believers "crazy" or "illogical" and retain any semblance of integrity and sincerity.
It is entirely possible that I am wrong. I can only go on what physicists say and I have no knowledge of the subject that I have obtained on my own. It still is jumping to conclusions to insert a god into the equations.
Hilariously enough I bought Hawkings book today. I'll have to read it for myself as people tend to misrepresent things in there favour. I'm not calling you a liar but earlier you misquoted me.
That's a direct quote from the book. Oh, and I should warn you that the book, facetiously enough, begins by proclaiming that "philosophy is dead" and then proceeds to concern itself (about 40-60% of the book) with speaking on philosophical matters. And, boy, is it bad philosophy...
Hmm, that line in the book did jump out at me. I thought it was a bit crass.
-
Okay, so I've been thinking about what "belief" is for a while and I'm totally confused.
Imagine a circle which contains belief in God. Anyone who believes anything in the circle can state "I believe in the existence of God."
Now, anywhere outside that that circle is not belief in God. Therefore, anyone outside of the circle must state, "I do not believe in the existence of God."
So, where's room for agnosticism? Even agnostics must state, "I do not believe in the existence of God." But isn't that the exact same thing as atheism? Unless there is a subtle difference between the statements "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "I believe in the nonexistence of God."
Let me diagram it for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/c6gNw.png)
Is this correct? Intuitively I feel there's something wrong with it, but I can't figure it out.
-
It looks like "Belief" is a subset of "Not Belief", but the big circle is supposed to represent the pool of all possible viewpoints, and anything that doesn't fall into "Belief" must fall into "Not Belief".
-
You are getting hung up on semantics rather than the underlying concepts.
Theism = "I think/am certain that there is a God."
Atheism = "I think/am certain that there is not a God."
Agnosticism = "There may or may not be a God, I'm not certain either way."
-
But when people like Dawkins come in and say basically everyone is an agnostic, skewed across a spectrum of "how sure" you are, it basically defeats the purpose of words like "theism" and "atheism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
There's just no line between the categories.
-
I give a fuck what he thinks about word definitions.
-
Well Hef your wrong.
-
So are you.
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions. Theism is a belief in (at least one) god. Atheism is a negation or rejection of theism. In the same way, agnosticism is a negation or rejection of "knowledge" of god.
-
Actually I am, I completely misread that. Carry on :lol
-
lol
-
As an agnostic, I can firmly say that all theists and atheists are wrong.
Maybe.
-
Agnostic means you don't think humans can know with certainty whether God's real or not. So I'd imagine everyone is an agnostic except for religious people who believe their holy texts constitute proof of God's existence or atheists who for some reason think they can absolutely disprove God's existence (these ones are probably pretty rare since disproving something that's supposedly "outside the universe" or can be found after death is impossible).
As I've said before, I don't think "agnosticism" means "50-50, it could go either way". It only refers to what you think about human's ability to know about the existence of God. Someone agnostic could be not sure whether they think God is real or not, or they could very much believe in his existence / non-existence but admit that it's just a belief, not absolute knowledge since we can't know for certain. Which is where the "theistic" and "atheistic" agnostics terms are coming from.
-
Proof is overrated. Very overrated.
-
Is this correct? Intuitively I feel there's something wrong with it, but I can't figure it out.
I wouldn't put atheism and theism inside agnosticism. I'm not sure these terms are clear enough to properly make into a good venn diagram.
Also, as for the thread in general, even though most people buckle down under pressure, and admit some skepticism into their belief of God's existence or non-existence, I don't think most people truly take agnosticism seriously. It's more a secondary trait, than being fully agnostic. It's not simply saying that you don't know for sure if what you believe is true, it's acknowledging the own belief or what you think to be true, as well as acknowledging the possible truth of beliefs which you don't hold up. If I never said it before, I'll say it now, the Cosmomological Proof is rational, logical and seems highly probable, but it hinges upon premises being true, and we can never know for sure if those premises are true.
*edit*
To be clear, the above isn't about anyone in this thread, or anyone who claims to be this or that. Simply that while it's true most people will admit ignorance, I don't think that makes most people agnostic.
Omega:
You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.
You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?
I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
-
It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
I think this is true, I just don't see how you get this from what came before. Logically, I think you're being correct in the dissection of A and not A, but you're ignoring other possibilities that don't really fit into such a dichotomy. Atheism becomes a very, very broad term, enough to encompass both agnosticism and people of religion and faith.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
I understand how agnosticism technically falls under the "atheist" umbrella, but I think there ought to be a distinction between the "religion is a fairy tale" kind and the "I don't know/care" kind (I'm the latter) in some way. That's why I call myself agnostic and avoid the atheist term. Too broad/ambiguous.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one? In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one? In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.
Isn't a belief based on conviction of some fact?
-
Omega:
You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.
You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?
I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.
What?
-
Omega:
You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.
You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?
I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.
What?
Omega:
You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.
You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?
I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.
-
:facepalm:
-
Well, good to know it made sense to someone, but let me put it differently.
You're objection to quantum mechanics explaining the big bang is that such an event requires something to exist in order for a quantum event to happen, but there's no reason to assume that what created our universe has to be something completely alien from our own. As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand. We're tiny, naive and ignorant creatures, who are but a tiny nothing of just our own, known universe.
I bring up math, because math is perhaps the most powerful human invention ever. The scientific method is not possible without math, and math's power is admittedly rather profound. Einstein demonstrates this more than anyone. And the physics and math can lead to some possibilities that make me lean towards the latter of the possibilities I mentioned above, that what we know and can experience isn't all of reality. Even Math should humble us to our own ignorance, and beg of us to be skeptics, and deny proof to anything other than what we say and demand to be true via human language (which math is).
-
I bring up math, because math is perhaps the most powerful human invention ever.
Math is a discovery.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one? In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.
Isn't a belief based on conviction of some fact?
YES, which is why an agnostic is not an atheist. They have no conviction of a belief. In fact, an agnostic thinks that no such conviction is possible.
Theists have conviction, and atheists have conviction. Agnostics believe that there is no conviction.
-
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods. That being said, I'm not sure that there isn't a god. How could I be?
Agnosticism is a full rational mindset. It is not, however, a theological position. It is merely an indication of the surety of one's theological beliefs.
-
What's wrong with my definitions? Those are the classical definitions.
A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.
That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.
Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one? In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.
Isn't a belief based on conviction of some fact?
YES, which is why an agnostic is not an atheist. They have no conviction of a belief. In fact, an agnostic thinks that no such conviction is possible.
Theists have conviction, and atheists have conviction. Agnostics believe that there is no conviction.
OK, that is where you are wrong. I have posted this multiple times. Gnostic refers to knowledge, theist refers to believe.
I am an agnostic atheist; I am agnostic when it comes to life on other planets and yet my position is a lack of belief in a god and I believe there is life in the universe somewhere.
Agnostics are atheists or theists.
-
The problem is that the definitions bleed into each other, making no one interpretation absolutely correct.
If you are an atheist or theist, does any sliver of doubt put you then into the agnostic camp? Yes, if you interpret the definitions one way. Coming to one consensus on the correct interpretation of the definitions, or trying to prove one interpretation correct over another, looks like an excercise in futility.
-
The problem is that the definitions bleed into each other, making no one interpretation absolutely correct.
If you are an atheist or theist, does any sliver of doubt put you then into the agnostic camp? Yes, if you interpret the definitions one way. Coming to one consensus on the correct interpretation of the definitions, or trying to prove one interpretation correct over another, looks like an excercise in futility.
I don't think the definitions bleed into each other. If you believe in a god or gods, you're a theist (or a deist or whatever, but let's keep it simple). If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. Whether you're an agnostic or not only indicates the level of conviction you have in those beliefs.
-
Yeah, they don't bleed at all.
-
The problem is that the definitions bleed into each other, making no one interpretation absolutely correct.
If you are an atheist or theist, does any sliver of doubt put you then into the agnostic camp? Yes, if you interpret the definitions one way. Coming to one consensus on the correct interpretation of the definitions, or trying to prove one interpretation correct over another, looks like an excercise in futility.
I don't think the definitions bleed into each other. If you believe in a god or gods, you're a theist (or a deist or whatever, but let's keep it simple). If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. Whether you're an agnostic or not only indicates the level of conviction you have in those beliefs.
If you can be both, that is what I mean by "bleed into each other".
-
Well since this thread is all about semantics and classification (lol @ arguing over definitions of atheist etc. without a decided definition of "God"), here's a riddle: M claims to be ignostic. He believes that "... a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, [he] takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless." So can M be classified as an atheist or does he need a new category?
-
Who gives a god damn?
-
Now that is a truly neutral stance.
-
Now that is a truly neutral stance.
Oh sorry, I forgot that you were asking a question. My post was more in reply to the entire discussion we're having. It wasn't supposed to be a direct response to your question.
-
Well, good to know it made sense to someone, but let me put it differently.
You're objection to quantum mechanics explaining the big bang is that such an event requires something to exist in order for a quantum event to happen, but there's no reason to assume that what created our universe has to be something completely alien from our own. As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand. We're tiny, naive and ignorant creatures, who are but a tiny nothing of just our own, known universe.
You're just assuming a "multiverse" (for which no evidence exists and is clearly mere conjecture) actually exists and are then just attributing this supposed multiverse with godly qualities (spaceless, immaterial, etc). In order to escape the perfectly reasonable conclusion of a creator, you take a leap of faith and simply postulate "well, the multiverse could have caused our universe to come into existence" and then attribute the multiverse with god-like qualities. Why assume a multiverse exists? Why assume the alleged multiverse has godly qualities? Merely postulating the existence of a multiverse serves only to push the beginning back a step. A multiverse would still be nothing more than an amalgamation of space, time, energy and matter yet on a much grander scale. It's like changing the size of our universe to be trillions upon trillions of times larger than what we believe it is. Given our scientific endeavors, various philosophical reasons, and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, that multiverse would still, ultimately, necessitate a beginning and explanation for its existence.
-
Well, good to know it made sense to someone, but let me put it differently.
You're objection to quantum mechanics explaining the big bang is that such an event requires something to exist in order for a quantum event to happen, but there's no reason to assume that what created our universe has to be something completely alien from our own. As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand. We're tiny, naive and ignorant creatures, who are but a tiny nothing of just our own, known universe.
You're just assuming a "multiverse" (for which no evidence exists and is clearly mere conjecture) actually exists and are then just attributing this supposed multiverse with godly qualities (spaceless, immaterial, etc).
I never said that said multiverse has you're godly qualities, I in fact said that these qualities don't have to be alien - that is, that which created our universe could very easily have spacelike, timelike, materiallike properties. Also, "mere conjecture" is not conjecture based upon unexplainable features of reality, math, and explainable features of reality. Conjecture? Yes, and I have always admitted that.
In order to escape the perfectly reasonable conclusion of a creator, you take a leap of faith and simply postulate "well, the multiverse could have caused our universe to come into existence" and then attribute the multiverse with god-like qualities. Why assume a multiverse exists? Why assume the alleged multiverse has godly qualities?
Why assume the multiverse exists? I'm not assuming the multiverse exists. I'm acknowledging that the multiverse could exist.
I never assumed that the multiverse does have godly qualities, I said it could be "God," because as Rathma pointed out above, at some point the discussion has to define God, and there are certain definitions of "God" I couldn't deny. I mean, one some level I'm really suggesting to you is maybe that which created our universe is "God," but that God isn't an agent who decided, and freely made the universe.
Merely postulating the existence of a multiverse serves only to push the beginning back a step. A multiverse would still be nothing more than an amalgamation of space, time, energy and matter yet on a much grander scale.
Do you read what I write, or just respond with an argument already in place that I'm making?
As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand.
If the multiverse is part of something even larger, who am I or you to make claims as to it's existence, the nature of it's existence, and possibly think we could answer why it exists? Not that I think these answers are possible, ever, to know.
I mean really, all you're doing is positing a multiverse, of sorts, but saying this something larger involves God, with the properties you attribute to God (spacelessness, timelessness, etc), without ever answering the question if it's possible "to exist" without being in space, in time, material, etc, or answering how such an "entity," "thing," or "being" could create the Universe. You're basically critiquing your own argument, and it's not a critique I disagree with.
-
Agnostics are atheists or theists.
Yeah, they don't bleed at all.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Agnostics are atheists or theists.
Yeah, they don't bleed at all.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Agnosticism is not a theological position. There's no bleeding there.
-
It's called humor.
Even though the semantics are tripping some people up, I am pretty sure most of us are agreed on the underlying concepts.
So what was this thread about again?
-
God knows.
(https://boourns.cjb.net/thumb/pics.526025.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vvjcV.gif)
-
God knows.
(https://boourns.cjb.net/thumb/pics.526025.jpg)
Well played (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/worship.gif)
-
So......are we in agreement? Does anyone disagree that atheism is making a positive claim (i.e., God does not exist)?
-
If you believe in a god or gods, you're a theist (or a deist or whatever, but let's keep it simple). If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. Whether you're an agnostic or not only indicates the level of conviction you have in those beliefs.
This is where I stand, however you want to take it to mean.
-
Let me ask in a different way. Must a person posit a positive reason to believe in the nonexistence of God in order to validate atheism? And if a person cannot posit a positive reason to believe in the nonexistence of God, should they take an agnostic stance, rather than an atheistic one?
-
I stand with Hef's post on it.
However one thing we all seem to be agreeing on is that Agnosticism isn't a theological stance and has no real reason to be grouped with Theism or Atheism.
I am Agnostic myself as I reject (most likely) the ability to know knowledge. However when it come's to a god of any kind, I don't believe but I don't reject the notion either. Which is why I don't classify myself as atheist.
But in the end, who cares? Why does it matter how we group together peoples belief systems? We're not even talking about the belief systems anymore, just how to best categorize them for no reason.
-
Again, I think it bears re-iterating that atheism has traditionally meant "God does not exist".
-
no it hasn't.
-
yes
-
Again, I think it bears re-iterating that none of this is relevant in the slightest bit.
-
Other than it being the whole point of the thread?
-
Other than it being the whole point of the thread?
It's going nowhere dude. You and other theists want to define atheism a certain way. Atheists want to define it another way. Despite its definition, everyone has their own beliefs. You and Omega will never agree with the atheists and the atheists will never agree with you.
And over what? The definition of a damn word that has no relevance to anything past an introductory statement.
This thread will just go on and on and on and on. You and Omega and others will keep saying the same things over and over, and the atheists will keep saying the same things over and over. What is the point?
-
What is the point?
Indeed. :millahhhh
-
Welp, that pretty much nailed the coffin.
-
Must a person posit a positive reason to believe in the nonexistence of God in order to validate atheism?
No.
And if a person cannot posit a positive reason to believe in the nonexistence of God, should they take an agnostic stance, rather than an atheistic one?
No.
-
Okay...
-
Somewhere between the terms atheist and agnostic there's the actually the key stance missing that (I think) most people adhere to who call themselves agnostic: The "I don't care" stance to the question. That is, weren't it for the constant media barrage of religious zealots, we would never even talk about God, because it's a topic we don't even feel has any merit or relevance to our lives. I can definitely say it never comes up as a topic among my friends on its own. Only the Santorums and Phelps out there force us to talk about it.
rumborak
-
Somewhere between the terms atheist and agnostic there's the actually the key stance missing that (I think) most people adhere to who call themselves agnostic: The "I don't care" stance to the question. That is, weren't it for the constant media barrage of religious zealots, we would never even talk about God, because it's a topic we don't even feel has any merit or relevance to our lives. I can definitely say it never comes up as a topic among my friends on its own. Only the Santorums and Phelps out there force us to talk about it.
rumborak
I agree. And it's unfortunate that people like Adami don't want to call themselves "atheist", because it conjures up the image of arrogant douchebags.
-
no it hasn't.
My God, Catfish. I truly wonder which plane of existence you inhabit. The statement that atheism has traditionally meant "God does not exist" is as accurate as saying that, traditionally, theism has meant "God exists". To deny this is just seems to be an act of petty desperation.
Somewhere between the terms atheist and agnostic there's the actually the key stance missing that (I think) most people adhere to who call themselves agnostic: The "I don't care" stance to the question. That is, weren't it for the constant media barrage of religious zealots, we would never even talk about God, because it's a topic we don't even feel has any merit or relevance to our lives. I can definitely say it never comes up as a topic among my friends on its own. Only the Santorums and Phelps out there force us to talk about it.
rumborak
I suppose that stance is most closely embodied by "verificationsim"
It's going nowhere dude. You and other theists want to define atheism a certain way. Atheists want to define it another way. Despite its definition, everyone has their own beliefs. You and Omega will never agree with the atheists and the atheists will never agree with you.
And over what? The definition of a damn word that has no relevance to anything past an introductory statement.
Yes, we are defining atheism in the traditional and correct manner. Atheists want to re-define it in a desperate attempt to claw themselves out of the indefensible position that God does not exist. You realize something is amiss here and so state "despite its definition, everyone has their own beliefs." Take that for what it is saying: there is an objective meaning, definition of a word that is being deliberately corrupted by one's beliefs. I suppose that I can take any word I so desire, disregard the definition of it and slap on my own "belief" of what I think or want the word should mean and convince others that this new corruption of the word is the correct one.
-
there is an objective meaning, definition of a word that is being deliberately corrupted by one's beliefs.
Dude, there are no such things as objective meanings of words. Ask any linguist. The important thing is to try to agree on a definition, not to insist on some authoritative "traditional" definition.
-
Yes, we are defining atheism in the traditional and correct manner. Atheists want to re-define it in a desperate attempt to claw themselves out of the indefensible position that God does not exist.
What the hell are you talking about? If someone doesn't believe in but doesn't actively deny the existence of god, whether they call themselves atheist or agnostic has NOTHING to do with their beliefs, or them trying to weasle out of some alleged philosophical problem.
You realize something is amiss here and so state "despite its definition, everyone has their own beliefs." Take that for what it is saying: there is an objective meaning, definition of a word that is being deliberately corrupted by one's beliefs.
No, it's saying that regardless of what someone calls themselves their views remain the same. There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication. Do you seriously have that hard a time comprehending how language works that you don't see that?
-
omega and sigz, tone it down
-
I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.
-
I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.
I'd garner that if atheism is being redefined, it's because more people don't care, and don't think you can know the answer to the question. And since agnostics get labeled as atheists by theists (as evidenced by this thread), agnostics then have a desire to be called the right thing, and redefine the word.
-
I've got to agree with Rathma and Sigz that there's no objective meaning to a word. But it's still semantically problematic that atheism has been redefined in modern times, and Omega is correct that the traditional definition of atheism is that it is the belief that God does not exist, a positive assertion. If people want to use atheism in the agnostic sense...then they ought to understand that they really don't have a good reason to believe that God does not exist, and they should acknowledge that they are just pragmatic atheists.
You're completely correct. I misspoke; I didn't quite mean objective. I meant "established". The point my post was that if one is allowed to re-define the already-established meaning of words, then what's the point of coming to an agreement upon the definitions of any words?
Atheism means "God does not exist." Anything less than this (eg "I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, however I won't commit myself to the absolute position of "God does not exist") is agnosticism. After establishing this, the individual then is free to add their own personal statements upon how sure they are of God's existence or non-existence.
To further clarify:
God does not exist = Atheism
I'm cant be sure whether God exists or not, but I'm convinced that God most likely does not exist
Red = agnosticism
Blue = personal biographical statement
-
There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.
This.
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)
/lock thread
-
There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.
This.
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)
/lock thread
:clap:
-
There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.
This.
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)
/lock thread
I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?
-
There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.
This.
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)
/lock thread
I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?
Based on 2, I guess so.
-
I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?
Bro, I don't think anybody wants to have this argument.
FYI Richard Dawkins would answer yes to all of those. Well, maybe not the dog.
-
He probably would.
-
There's like a thousand different beliefs about our universe/existence that someone can hold, and we have 3 different words to describe them - there's going to be some miscommunication.
This.
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1 = not teapot (not neutral)
2 = teapot (neutral)
/lock thread
I do not believe in Thor. Am I an atheist? A newborn doesn't believe in any type of God. Is a newborn an atheist? Is my dog, Brutus the Destroyer, an atheist as well?
1. No, because you believe in another god. You'd have to believe in no gods. None what so ever. Which one it is, doesn't matter.
2. No because newborns can't concieve of god and can't make a decision.
3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.
-
Newborns don't believe in any gods. They're atheists.
However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.
-
Newborns don't believe in any gods. They're atheists.
However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.
They're also solipsists.
But you're right. It's meaningless.
-
3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.
So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.
Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! :)
RAW DOG BITCHES
-
3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.
So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.
Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! :)
RAW DOG BITCHES
Well Brutus ate god. He knows that god is dead, thus doesn't believe in him.
-
Newborns don't believe in any gods. They're atheists.
However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.
I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.
-
Newborns don't believe in any gods. They're atheists.
However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.
I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.
And you'd have a major difficulty proving it.
-
Newborns don't believe in any gods. They're atheists.
However, that doesn't have any inherent meaning.
I think it's very possible that children (maybe not newborns) have an innate belief in God, unless forcefully persuaded otherwise.
And you'd have a major difficulty proving it.
You'd have a major difficulty proving otherwise, too. My main point is that you can't just make a blanket statement "Children would not believe in God in the absence of social influences".
-
There is a HUGE difference between "Children can't possibly concieve of god without someone telling them" and "Children don't have an innate belief in god"
Maybe as they grow, they will come to a belief. Maybe they won't. But believing in god doesn't rely solely on either A societies influence or B it being innate.
And is belief in the one true god innate? What about belief in multiple gods? Or nature gods? Which one is innate?
-
To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.
-
3. Your dog Brutus the Destroyer isn't an atheist. The reason he doesn't believe in god is because he ate god. He ate god because he is Brutus the Destroyer. In fact, The Destroyer are his middle names. His last names are Of Gods.
So he's not an atheist but doesn't believe in god.
Hmm, good conclusion to this thread! :)
RAW DOG BITCHES
Well Brutus ate god. He knows that god is dead, thus doesn't believe in him.
My dog = Nietzsche :mehlin
-
To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.
Children of what age? Infants do not have the physiological capacity to even fathom such things.
And of course children who are old enough to imagine god do so. They live in a world where god is mentioned 100 times a day in a variety of circumstances.
-
To make it very broad, belief in some kind of supernatural force to the universe. That's not uncommon in children at at. Even if we narrow it down to a "God", that's still pretty common in children.
Children of what age? Infants do not have the physiological capacity to even fathom such things.
And of course children who are old enough to imagine god do so. They live in a world where god is mentioned 100 times a day in a variety of circumstances.
Like...8 years old or something. My parents weren't religious and I sort of believed in a pantheistic God (i.e. God is in everything), even though it didn't govern the way I lived at all.
-
And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s). By that logic, everyone is an atheist (because no one believes in all of the proposed gods and deities of the history of mankind and because believing in multiple gods is incoherent with monotheistic gods), including all animals, etc. It's simply silly.
-
Just curious Omega, is this how you see the world?
(https://images.faithclipart.com/images/3/f0129112aa/img_large_watermarked.jpg)
-
Just curious Omega, is this how you see the world?
(https://images.faithclipart.com/images/3/f0129112aa/img_large_watermarked.jpg)
I see skies of blue, clouds of white
Bright blessed days, dark sacred nights
And I think to myself...what a wonderful world
-
And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).
Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:
-
derp
-
And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).
Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:
Be careful what you wish for, man. This is Omega you're talking to.
-
And the reason I asked that (whether a baby is an atheist, etc) is to demonstrate just how silly (never mind disingenuous) it is to redefine atheism as "lack of belief" in God(s).
Dude, do you have a problem with a definition as posted on dictionary.com? How bout you go hack it. Oops, is it also in books. Go burn them, lest this unwholesome definition continues to contaminate the population D:
Rathma, are you saying that it is not a possibility that these dictionaries have been (unfortunately) influenced by the slimy rhetoric of the New Atheists into accepting an inadequate definition of atheism, whatever their reason for doing so may be?
-
The job of dictionaries are to explain to people in which sense words are used. Definitions change over periods of time, you don't need conspiracies to explain it.
-
since it is apparent that this topic cannot be discussed without insulting each other, despite warnings, this thread is now locked