Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[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

[Ħ]

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.

[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.

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

[theseoafs]

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.

[rumborak]

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
 

[theseoafs]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[theseoafs]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[Omega]

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?

[theseoafs]

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.

[Rathma]

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. 

[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 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

[Omega]

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.

[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.

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

[Omega]

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.

[Rathma]

 

[Omega]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

WTF @ this thread.

[Ħ]

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!

[El JoNNo]

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.

[gmillerdrake]

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.

[the Catfishman]

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.

[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

[7StringedBeast]

Just saw this today, must post...

https://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3obmi2/

[rumborak]

As before, if anybody is actually interested in evolution, I highly highly recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Amazing book.

rumborak

[gmillerdrake]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[rumborak]

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*

Honestly, that book is pure awesomeness from start to finish. Reading how your inner ear came about  blew my mind.

rumborak

[Rick]

Atheists and theists. Arguments are 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, most of the time.

[Ben_Jamin]

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?

[El JoNNo]

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.

[Rathma]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.