Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[Genericguy]

Not everyone accepts that time is in fact a property of the material universe or part of the laws which govern it.

I would be one of those.

So far I have to agree with En_Route, there is much we do not know about the natural world and a lot is speculative and many anomalies exist, dark matter being a perfect example.

Many anomalies do exist and many more will be discovered. Things that are impossible, as we currently know them to be, may one day be discovered. We might never have an explanation for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

A quick derail if you don't mind... Dark matter has mass correct? Wouldn't that be a part of the material universe?

[Genericguy]

I just don't see why there has to be a confrontation between theists and atheists, anymore than there has to be a confrontation between those who prefer fish and those who prefer beef.  As long as people are just discussing their views and not attempting to impose "fishism" or "beefism" on others, it's just a conversation. I'll admit that theists probably need to learn this more than atheists. 

I agree as well. I have been overlooking the word "confrontation". It should never exceed discussion and turn confrontational.

[Crow]

Many anomalies do exist and many more will be discovered. Things that are impossible, as we currently know them to be, may one day be discovered. We might never have an explination for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

I totally understand what you are saying as I agree with it in part, but lets say the hypothesis about dark matter is incorrect and it turns out to be something that was previously considered supernatural, our understanding would then adapt and that which was previously classified supernatural would become natural as you stated prior. However, until evidence is present for that then it remains in the realm of supernatural. Now lets just say you are the scientist that proposed this alternative supernatural theory, prior to evidence being found your theory was laughed at for your theory being inconceivable foolishness, but the work you had done gave you the strong belief that you were correct and all you needed was evidence to prove everyone wrong.

All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature, the existence of a god is not impossible (just unlikely), don't forget we as a species know practically fuck all and even though people call on god of the gaps all the time there are some huge gaps a god could hide it just depends on what that definition of a god is. There are also those with a concept of a god that is beyond nature similar to how a computer game works, the god has created a universe where rules are in play but its rather easy for that god to just change the code when deemed fit, we and our laws of nature are just a small part of a greater set of laws and there is absolutely no chance you can really argue with them that their concept of a god isn't exempt from our laws of nature as their concept by its very nature is beyond them.

[Firebird]

I see what Genericguy is trying to say, and I sympathize more with his position. I think you could put forward Genericguy's point about nature (Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence) as a scientific theory. This is fair based on the evidence we've observed thus far, and leaves open the possibility that perhaps something supernatural could exist, but until we see it, we don't believe it's true. Then the onus is on the theist, or some other scientist who discovers evidence, to disprove it, which is as it should be.
I imagine the theists may disagree with this, as shown by the arguments made before. But the claim that since god or gods are supernatural, you can't measure him/her/it/them, seems like a cop-out. It's one of the arguments that pushed me into atheism. Why should your god or gods be exempt from the scientific method when nothing else is? What gives them the right to such an exemption? Just saying "because I believe" isn't really a valid argument.

[Crow]

"because I believe" isn't really a valid argument.

I disagree, what me and you may consider a valid argument doesn't matter if its in conflict with a persons belief, and that's not just a belief in a god. We also need to apply the same vigor to atheism, even though we have a lack of evidence that a god exists, with concepts of gods such as the wizend guy in the sky have been ruled out. but other concepts could still be possible just as a worm hole could be possible. But is "because I don't believe" a valid argument? I don't believe in a god simple because I don't believe, not because of any lack of evidence or its popular not to, i just don't find it a convincing theory for life or the cosmos and overly complex for something which by nature is very simple.

I think you could put forward Genericguy's point about nature (Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence) as a scientific theory.

From this you also have these arguments "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature" (- Frank Loyd Wright). Its the theological transformation of tao, for this type of believer the evidence of nature is itself evidence for a god of some sort. How do you argue your point to a person that doesn't put much trust in science or views it as something that doesn't know everything as is only truly beginning to scratch the surface. Therefore its a futile argument, science doesn't need the god argument to progress as its not focusing on such an inane hypothetical questions. It doesn't matter if person A believes and person B doesn't, what does matter is that cunts cant use that belief to take advantage of those desperate for something to believe in.

[En_Route]

I see what Genericguy is trying to say, and I sympathize more with his position. I think you could put forward Genericguy's point about nature (Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence) as a scientific theory. This is fair based on the evidence we've observed thus far, and leaves open the possibility that perhaps something supernatural could exist, but until we see it, we don't believe it's true. Then the onus is on the theist, or some other scientist who discovers evidence, to disprove it, which is as it should be.
I imagine the theists may disagree with this, as shown by the arguments made before. But the claim that since god or gods are supernatural, you can't measure him/her/it/them, seems like a cop-out. It's one of the arguments that pushed me into atheism. Why should your god or gods be exempt from the scientific method when nothing else is? What gives them the right to such an exemption? Just saying "because I believe" isn't really a valid argument.

Genericguy's assertion that nothing can exist and be outside nature is no more than that. We just don't and can't know for sure if it's true. We can certainly say that in the absence of any evidence for supernatural forces,there is no reason to believe in them. That's a different matter.

[Sandra Craft]

I think we've just proven why futile confrontations between theists and atheists are inevitable.  Remember the OP?

The first step toward mutual respect between theists and atheists should be the recognition that most people on Earth live in two different worlds: material and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy books.

And this was written by a man who I believe is a scientist (or at least a mathematician) and a former atheist.  When push comes to shove, we're debating at cross purposes.

[En_Route]

I think we've just proven why futile confrontations between theists and atheists are inevitable.  Remember the OP?

The first step toward mutual respect between theists and atheists should be the recognition that most people on Earth live in two different worlds: material and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy books.

And this was written by a man who I believe is a scientist (or at least a mathematician) and a former atheist.  When push comes to shove, we're debating at cross purposes.

I don't think we generally are at cross-purposes. You don't need to invoke science to challenge theism, although some atheists seem to think it can be enlisted. There may be a case that science casts further doubt on the specific claims surrounding the Christian god,but I think it's superfluous.

[Firebird]

I disagree, what me and you may consider a valid argument doesn't matter if its in conflict with a persons belief, and that's not just a belief in a god. We also need to apply the same vigor to atheism, even though we have a lack of evidence that a god exists, with concepts of gods such as the wizend guy in the sky have been ruled out. but other concepts could still be possible just as a worm hole could be possible. But is "because I don't believe" a valid argument? I don't believe in a god simple because I don't believe, not because of any lack of evidence or its popular not to, i just don't find it a convincing theory for life or the cosmos and overly complex for something which by nature is very simple.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, as my statement "because I believe is not a valid argument" referred to the idea that the idea of a supernatural being should be exempt from testing via the scientific method/empirical reasoning, and I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. No, "because I don't believe" is not a valid argument if you're trying to prove your case to theist of the absence of god/gods. For example, I can point to a lack of evidence of real miracles, the fact that the stories were written thousands of years ago, the fact that human history has always used different version of supernatural beings to explain things they didn't understand at the time, etc as good reason for my lack of faith.
My original point was that claiming you can't test god because he's supernatural and thus the laws don't apply to him/her/it seems like a cop-out. It's the reason people use the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument; I could claim that exists too and is supernatural, so the same logic applies, as ridiculous as it sounds.

[Genericguy]

All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature, the existence of a god is not impossible (just unlikely)...

We can certainly say that in the absence of any evidence for supernatural forces,there is no reason to believe in them.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but both of you seem to think I disagree with these statements. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Many anomalies do exist and many more will be discovered. Things that are impossible, as we currently know them to be, may one day be discovered. We might never have an explination for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

I totally understand what you are saying as I agree with it in part, but lets say the hypothesis about dark matter is incorrect and it turns out to be something that was previously considered supernatural, our understanding would then adapt and that which was previously classified supernatural would become natural as you stated prior. However, until evidence is present for that then it remains in the realm of supernatural. Now lets just say you are the scientist that proposed this alternative supernatural theory, prior to evidence being found your theory was laughed at for your theory being inconceivable foolishness, but the work you had done gave you the strong belief that you were correct and all you needed was evidence to prove everyone wrong.

All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature, the existence of a god is not impossible (just unlikely), don't forget we as a species know practically fuck all and even though people call on god of the gaps all the time there are some huge gaps a god could hide it just depends on what that definition of a god is. There are also those with a concept of a god that is beyond nature similar to how a computer game works, the god has created a universe where rules are in play but its rather easy for that god to just change the code when deemed fit, we and our laws of nature are just a small part of a greater set of laws and there is absolutely no chance you can really argue with them that their concept of a god isn't exempt from our laws of nature as their concept by its very nature is beyond them.

I agree with everything you said until the bold. He built the computer game in such a way that it would allow him to continue to work on and interact with it. There would be no law that prevents him from further interaction, therefore he is complying with the laws of nature. Science is nothing more than our attempt to understand what is true. If it was true that god was exempt from the laws of nature, then we would create a "law" exempting god and the following would be true... According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature. "Gods will" could possibly become a known form of energy... etc. etc.

[Crow]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, as my statement "because I believe is not a valid argument" referred to the idea that the idea of a supernatural being should be exempt from testing via the scientific method/empirical reasoning, and I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. No, "because I don't believe" is not a valid argument if you're trying to prove your case to theist of the absence of god/gods. For example, I can point to a lack of evidence of real miracles, the fact that the stories were written thousands of years ago, the fact that human history has always used different version of supernatural beings to explain things they didn't understand at the time, etc as good reason for my lack of faith.
My original point was that claiming you can't test god because he's supernatural and thus the laws don't apply to him/her/it seems like a cop-out. It's the reason people use the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument; I could claim that exists too and is supernatural, so the same logic applies, as ridiculous as it sounds.

Sorry about that I was scan reading and thought you were using it an a general argument for the existence of a god rather than exemption from the scientific method.

However those examples you have used are a very narrow view of a god, the Abrahamic god defined by the bibles are very easy to dispute because they are very clearly defined, and verge on ridiculous. Its current moderate inception is far removed from its origin so the arguments with strength come from a general concept of god not defined by those books, what we now consider a fundamentalist view a few hundred years ago was the normal view and wasn't properly challenged until science got good. I would disagree simply because I don't feel the need to disprove others belief or justify my disbelief, if I was arguing the non existence of a god I could only really argue against a certain kind of god and certainly not every type of god, I have yet to see a single atheist speaker/writer take on deism successfully (if you know of any post them as I would be well interested in watching them) for example but what is there really to argue when its so vague. At a certain point belief and disbelief have the same amount of evidence backing them up and that is nothing, so "because that's what I do/don't believe" is certainly valid in an argument past a certain point as science isn't on either side. I have always thought the FSM is just as much a cop out argument for atheists as claiming you cant test god, it sidesteps their argument rather than tackles it, the rebuttal really should be "define you concept of god and lets have a look" if its really about is there a god or not.

[En_Route]

All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature, the existence of a god is not impossible (just unlikely)...

We can certainly say that in the absence of any evidence for supernatural forces,there is no reason to believe in them.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but both of you seem to think I disagree with these statements. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Many anomalies do exist and many more will be discovered. Things that are impossible, as we currently know them to be, may one day be discovered. We might never have an explination for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

I totally understand what you are saying as I agree with it in part, but lets say the hypothesis about dark matter is incorrect and it turns out to be something that was previously considered supernatural, our understanding would then adapt and that which was previously classified supernatural would become natural as you stated prior. However, until evidence is present for that then it remains in the realm of supernatural. Now lets just say you are the scientist that proposed this alternative supernatural theory, prior to evidence being found your theory was laughed at for your theory being inconceivable foolishness, but the work you had done gave you the strong belief that you were correct and all you needed was evidence to prove everyone wrong.

All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature, the existence of a god is not impossible (just unlikely), don't forget we as a species know practically fuck all and even though people call on god of the gaps all the time there are some huge gaps a god could hide it just depends on what that definition of a god is. There are also those with a concept of a god that is beyond nature similar to how a computer game works, the god has created a universe where rules are in play but its rather easy for that god to just change the code when deemed fit, we and our laws of nature are just a small part of a greater set of laws and there is absolutely no chance you can really argue with them that their concept of a god isn't exempt from our laws of nature as their concept by its very nature is beyond them.

I agree with everything you said until the bold. He built the computer game in such a way that it would allow him to continue to work on and interact with it. There would be no law that prevents him from further interaction, therefore he is complying with the laws of nature. Science is nothing more than our atempt to understand what is true. If it was true that god was exempt from the laws of nature, then we would create a "law" exempting god and the following would be true... According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature. "Gods will" could possibly become a known form of energy... etc. etc.

I think we're going round in circles at this point. I don't agree that "All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature". This seems to me depend on a logical fallacy to the effect": "Some things previously considered to be supernatural have now been explained by science, therefore everything which appears to be supernatural will be explained by science". Nor do I think the Christian God, who by definition is immaterial and beyond the reach of the laws which govern the material universe, if he existed could ever be brought within those laws. I note you say "We (ie mankind, I asume) would create a law" but of course in Christian theology only god can create those laws. My point is that your argument- is based on an assumption that nothing supernatural can ever exist- is relying on an assertion without anything to back it. My position is that something supernatural could exist and I have no means at my disposal of rebutting that possibility,  but in the absence of the slightest indication that any such entity exists, I don't believe in it.

[Genericguy]

I don't agree that "All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature". This seems to me depend on a logical fallacy to the effect": "Some things previously considered to be supernatural have now been explained by science, therefore everything which appears to be supernatural will be explained by science".

As I previously stated: "We might never have an explanation for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature."

My point is that your argument- is based on an assumption that nothing supernatural can ever exist- is relying on an assertion without anything to back it. My position is that something supernatural could exist and I have no means at my disposal of rebutting that possibility,  but in the absence of the slightest indication that any such entity exists, I don't believe in it.

I would appreciate a rebuttal to my quote above as that is my evidence.

[En_Route]

I don't agree that "All supernatural means is that it is beyond our current understanding of science and laws of nature". This seems to me depend on a logical fallacy to the effect": "Some things previously considered to be supernatural have now been explained by science, therefore everything which appears to be supernatural will be explained by science".

As I previously stated: "We might never have an explanation for their existence, but when something is discovered that defies everything we know about the laws of nature, we will at the very least gain one pivotal bit of knowledge... the laws of nature were not "built" in such a way that would prevent the subject from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature."

My point is that your argument- is based on an assumption that nothing supernatural can ever exist- is relying on an assertion without anything to back it. My position is that something supernatural could exist and I have no means at my disposal of rebutting that possibility,  but in the absence of the slightest indication that any such entity exists, I don't believe in it.

I would appreciate a rebuttal to my quote above as that is my evidence.

With respect,I think that's a non-sequitur.You can build or create something without being part of it yourself.  A creator-god is all-powerful and  is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself to operate within his own creation. Simply because the existence of a material universe is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god who made it doesn't mean he is bound  by the laws of that universe. I can devise a software package which  has it's own internal logic; the existence of that package is consistent with me existing but I am not bound by the logic of that programme.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You can build or create something without being part of it yourself.  A creator-god is all-powerful and  is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself to operate within his own creation. Simply because the existence of a material universe is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god who made it doesn't mean he is bound  by the laws of that universe. I can devise a software package which  has it's own internal logic; the existence of that package is consistent with me existing but I am not bound by the logic of that programme.

Excellent point. Furthermore, the programme you devised would not necessarily ever have any way of concluding that you existed.