Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html)
QuoteThe 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.
Talks a lot of sense, I might not agree with the choice of words but I do with the spirit of the article. I still think having a dialogue between the two is worthwhile, especially for the sake of those that are easily swayed and might easily fall prey to fundamentalist thinking (from both sides), give me the middle ground any day over the extremes. What do they say "great minds think alike but only fools rarely differ".
Quote from: Crow on June 13, 2012, 05:30:31 PM
Talks a lot of sense, I might not agree with the choice of words but I do with the spirit of the article. I still think having a dialogue between the two is worthwhile, especially for the sake of those that are easily swayed and might easily fall prey to fundamentalist thinking (from both sides), give me the middle ground any day over the extremes. What do they say "great minds think alike but only fools rarely differ".
I agree with you. It's the basis for my being here at HAF. I'm not here to convert any person. ( It's not my job to do so as a Christian. )
I think this is a false dichotomy. It is not a question of science v religion but rather a question of the epistemological basis for religion. Theism can be challenged (I would say, refuted) on the basis of reason and logic, irrespective of the current state of scientific understanding. The notion that spiritual discourse is of a different order to our regular thought processes presupposes its own conclusion, ie that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence which transcends the reality we experience in our daily lives. The real antithesis is between rationality and faith.
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason. There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres. But we can talk about it forever.
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?
QuoteThings that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2012, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason. There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres. But we can talk about it forever.
I thought that's why we were here !
Quote from: Genericguy on June 13, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?
QuoteThings that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.
I don't see how you need the existence of science to establish the Christian god's status as a supernatural entity, viz. not of this world.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2012, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason. There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres.
Indeed. But the point is one set of tools is objective and the other subjective.
The theist might argue that 'revelation' is a reasoned (objective) argument for God, but this assumes that his brain is interpreting sensory input correctly. whilst I, as an atheist, would view it as an erroneous interpretation of an 'experience', it is evident that the subject will not. I would find it hard to blame him for that. But in his subsequent invitation to God he has either
chosen to accept his non-objective thoughts over objective reasoning or ignored reasoning altogether.
So, with that in mind I wanted to ask if you accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin. From this position the door to discussion is opened a crack.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
It's both IMHO. Understanding that most, if not all, atheists disbelieve the bible as historic. However there is evidence to show it is authentic. Once one has determined to him/herself that their requirement of evidence is satisfied, then one can start looking at the prophecies within. If it is determined that the timing/dates of the writings of this collection of books is accurate (enough) then one can start seeing that the writers of these prophecies couldn't possibly have known such things. The city of Tyre and the prophecy of the world ( Nebuchadnezzar's dream ). Now, I know quite well there is opposition to these from the atheist perspective so no need to get all up in arms. The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe. (I'll look for the prophecy of Tyre as explained by someone who knows both the bible and history. I've looke before, but not found a presentation as I've heard before.)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?
Didn't I mention it being both IMHO?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 09:44:16 PM
Indeed. But the point is one set of tools is objective and the other subjective.
The theist might argue that 'revelation' is a reasoned (objective) argument for God, but this assumes that his brain is interpreting sensory input correctly. whilst I, as an atheist, would view it as an erroneous interpretation of an 'experience', it is evident that the subject will not. I would find it hard to blame him for that. But in his subsequent invitation to God he has either chosen to accept his non-objective thoughts over objective reasoning or ignored reasoning altogether.
So, with that in mind I wanted to ask if you accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin. From this position the door to discussion is opened a crack.
The way I see it is that revelation and reason are simply on different planes. While the recepient of the revelation experience may be, IMO, justified in taking it as real, he is not justified in calling it "knowledge," which I think remains in the realm of objective observation and reason. He may refer to it as "faith" and remain constant in his belief, but should be open to criticism by those who don't accept his particular epistemology. Belief in God is not, IMO, a reasoned position, but should be open to reasoned arguments as a safeguard against bias and against inappropriate extension of his faith into the realm of reason/knowledge.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 10:46:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?
Didn't I mention it being both IMHO?
Apologies, yes you did.
You are entitled to your honest opinion, but I will always consider your arguments insufficient to be classed as reason.
Here we have a futile confrontation... ;D
I've made my point. Peace.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2012, 11:05:09 PM
The way I see it is that revelation and reason are simply on different planes. While the recepient of the revelation experience may be, IMO, justified in taking it as real, he is not justified in calling it "knowledge," which I think remains in the realm of objective observation and reason. He may refer to it as "faith" and remain constant in his belief, but should be open to criticism by those who don't accept his particular epistemology. Belief in God is not, IMO, a reasoned position, but should be open to reasoned arguments as a safeguard against bias and against inappropriate extension of his faith into the realm of reason/knowledge.
Perfect. Respect.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.
Would you say that's fair AD?
It's both IMHO. Understanding that most, if not all, atheists disbelieve the bible as historic. However there is evidence to show it is authentic. Once one has determined to him/herself that their requirement of evidence is satisfied, then one can start looking at the prophecies within. If it is determined that the timing/dates of the writings of this collection of books is accurate (enough) then one can start seeing that the writers of these prophecies couldn't possibly have known such things. The city of Tyre and the prophecy of the world ( Nebuchadnezzar's dream ). Now, I know quite well there is opposition to these from the atheist perspective so no need to get all up in arms. The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe. (I'll look for the prophecy of Tyre as explained by someone who knows both the bible and history. I've looke before, but not found a presentation as I've heard before.)
I thought the claims regarding Tyre had long since been punctured.
Quote from: En_Route on June 13, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 13, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?
QuoteThings that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.
I don't see how you need the existence of science to establish the Christian god's status as a supernatural entity, viz. not of this world.
If something truely existed, that was not of this world or of this universe, it would be considered natural for it to exist, not supernatural. The fact that it exists is what defines it as natural. The word supernatural is an oxymoron. Any claim that something exists is a claim that it is natural and not supernatural. It is up to science to determine if it's natural or not.
I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this clear enough.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 13, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 13, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?
QuoteThings that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.
I don't see how you need the existence of science to establish the Christian god's status as a supernatural entity, viz. not of this world.
If something truely existed, that was not of this world or of this universe, it would be considered natural for it to exist, not supernatural. The fact that it exists is what defines it as natural. The word supernatural is an oxymoron. Any claim that something exists is a claim that it is natural and not supernatural. It is up to science to determine if it's natural or not.
I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this clear enough.
I continue to struggle. Supernatural in its wider sense denotes something which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of nature, or more narrowly, as relating to a deity. Neither of those definition predicates that that the object in question does not exist. God in the Christian tradition passes man's comprehension but they think they know he's up there. So God on this understanding is not testable by science which is confined to explaining the ordinary laws of nature. I think where Science has in practice most seriously undermined popular adherence to theism is by demonstrating that the apparent "design" of the world's inhabitants can be explained as an accident of circumstance.
Quote from: En_RouteSupernatural in its wider sense denotes something which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of nature, or more narrowly, as relating to a deity.
It would have to be "known laws of nature". If a claim that something exists is proven to be fact, then our understanding of the laws of nature would have to change. The laws of nature itself would remain in harmony with the subject being discussed. The "supernatural" subject being discussed would In fact be natural.
Quote from: En_RouteNeither of those definition predicates that that the object in question does not exist.
I agree. It means it goes against our current understanding of the laws of nature.
Quote from: En_RouteGod in the Christian tradition passes man's comprehension but they think they know he's up there. God on this understanding is not testable by science which is confined to explaining the ordinary laws of nature
Believing in it does not warrant scientific involvement. Asserting it as fact does. To make a claim that it exists, it to claim that it's natural. Science is the study of nature.
Quote from: En_RouteI think where Science has in practice most seriously undermined popular adherence to theism is by demonstrating that the apparent "design" of the world's inhabitants can be explained as an accident of circumstance.
Yes. Science, figuratively speaking, is a shield preventing god(s) from becoming natural. It does a great job of that. The sword of science, so to speak, unfortunately, has little effect. It can always be countered by the theists shield... "god made it that way". Therein lies the futility.
How would you differentiate between "believing something" and "stating that it is a fact". Can I say that I believe in God without necessarily implying that the existence of God is a fact?
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 06:20:56 PM
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.
Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.
I know I'm late to the party here (its been a busy week) and En_Route, ScissorLegs and others have already made some elegent and thoughtful responses, but really....
QuoteQuote
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.
This statement is simply an appeal to ignorance, X 2. Your science can't disprove the existance of my God, therefore he exits, PLUS, my theology cannot disprove you science, therefore your age claim to the earth is invalid. This is nothing more then the familier tried and true argument to justisfy the existance of god, you can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore he must. As En_Route stated earlier, a false dichotomy.
I agree with the earlier statement from Scissorlegs "accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin." But to offer the existance of god up as a subject that cannot be meaningfully discussed by atheists because they don't posess the theists spirtitual wisdom is condescending at best.
QuoteIt's both IMHO. Understanding that most, if not all, atheists disbelieve the bible as historic. However there is evidence to show it is authentic. Once one has determined to him/herself that their requirement of evidence is satisfied, then one can start looking at the prophecies within. If it is determined that the timing/dates of the writings of this collection of books is accurate (enough) then one can start seeing that the writers of these prophecies couldn't possibly have known such things. The city of Tyre and the prophecy of the world ( Nebuchadnezzar's dream ). Now, I know quite well there is opposition to these from the atheist perspective so no need to get all up in arms. The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe. (I'll look for the prophecy of Tyre as explained by someone who knows both the bible and history. I've looke before, but not found a presentation as I've heard before.)
Animateddirt, I don't mean to pick on you. In the past I've admired much of what you have to say, but the above statement has been bugging me all day.
Lets assume for the moment that the Bible does represent THE TRUTH. (I for one believe many of the historical facts in it are correct and that there was a dude named Jesus who had a really good philosophy, but that doesn't make him the son of God) This means that your christian god is THE GOD and everyone elses god is make believe. Like the Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Buddists. The other 51% of the world who believe in god, (according to Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups not counting us athesists) have it all wrong.
Or maybe your GOD is just "a god". How is the poor, uniformed atheist to get it right? Which god do we have to prove doesn't exist? The christian god, buddist, muslim, thor, zues, ra? Maybe the "Real" god is one that a small group of indians who have still never made contact with "civilization" worship in the amazon rain forest. Its a tough job disproving the existance of all these gods. There must be ten thousand of them.
So if theists wish to claim the existance of God on the basis of Faith, I can get behind that. Its thier thing. But if they contend that the laws governing society or ethics (a sly use of moral in a different form) should be determined by thier GOD or religion I'm against it. And if they want to debate the existance of God, then enter the arena. But they cannot say they want to participate in the debate then dissallow the alternative point of view because we don't share your acceptance of the bible (or any other religious book) as the word of God or participate in thier spritual belief's.
Atheists can be spiritual. Nothing more so then a mighty OAK TREE dripping in a morning rain, or a mountain or waves crashing on the shore or holding your child in your arms. Theists do not have an exclusive on spirituality.
Quote from: technolud on June 15, 2012, 02:35:24 AM
So if theists wish to claim the existance of God on the basis of Faith, I can get behind that.
Me too. I have no problem with people having faith in supernatural entities -- I've got friends who believe in ghosts and unicorns and all what not -- my problem is when people try to force their specific faith practices into everyones life.
QuoteAnd if they want to debate the existance of God, then enter the arena. But they cannot say they want to participate in the debate then dissallow the alternative point of view because we don't share your acceptance of the bible (or any other religious book) as the word of God or participate in thier spritual belief's.
Pretty much my thinking too. The problem seems that theists claim they have evidence which atheists choose to ignore, while atheists (or at least me) consider their "evidence" actually unsupported stories and ancient hearsay.
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 12:49:04 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 06:20:56 PM
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.
Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.
If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 15, 2012, 06:34:12 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 12:49:04 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 06:20:56 PM
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.
Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.
If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.
This is the nub of it. God is defined so as to be outside the reach of science. He is exempt from the laws of nature. When he rides into town, virgins give birth, water turns into wine and the dead rise again. These feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature. If there were any evidence these miracles had genuinely occurred then we atheists might have to reconsider our position. But of course there isn't any.
Please would people attempt to attribute quotations. - Tank
To do so you simply need to add the name of the person you are quoting into the first quote tag [quote=Tank]
Thus
[quote=Tank]
Tank wrote this
[quote]
Will appear as
Quote from: Tank
Tank wrote this
If you are doing multiple quotes from one user you only need to attribute the first quote although it would be appreciated if all quotes were attributed so if they are in turn quoted we can all see who said what.
Thank you.
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.
Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......
Quote from: technolud on June 15, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.
Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......
Who said that??
Quote from: technolud on June 15, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.
Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......
Good Boy *pats technolud* ;)
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?
I think most atheists would be willing to concede that, since you can't really prove a negative.
But most theists? I don't see many of them compromising on their end about this, and is a big part of the problem. It's simpler to just say anything we don't understand must be controlled by some higher power. We've been doing it throughout our history.
I sympathize with Genericguy's position on this, which is essentially that there's no such thing as "supernatural". If we come across some scenario that blows up our understanding of the laws of nature (like, say, a person walking on water) it just means we don't fully understand those laws or can't comprehend them because our senses aren't attuned to them properly.
EDIT: Gave proper credit to Genericguy instead of technolud
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?
I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere. Technically, to believe is not to claim to know. You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.
Quote from: Firebird bird bird birdI sympathize with technoluds's position on this, which is essentially that there's no such thing as "supernatural". If we come across some scenario that blows up our understanding of the laws of nature (like, say, a person walking on water) it just means we don't fully understand those laws or can't comprehend them because our senses aren't attuned to them properly.
In interest of full disclosure, I didn't say that. Wish I had. Agree completely with it. But credit must go to Genericguy.
My apologies, you're right. I'll fix that
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 15, 2012, 06:34:12 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 12:49:04 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 06:20:56 PM
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.
Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.
If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.
This is the nub of it. God is defined so as to be outside the reach of science. He is exempt from the laws of nature. When he rides into town, virgins give birth, water turns into wine and the dead rise again. These feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature. If there were any evidence these miracles had genuinely occurred then we atheists might have to reconsider our position. But of course there isn't any.
We place magic outside of science without a second thought. We do this with such ease because we have done so for so long. Let's examine, though, what would happen if a wizards wand were to be found that gave magic power to its wielder. Our understandings of the laws of nature would make room for the existence of magic. Maybe we would add it to our list of known energys... Kinetic, Electromagnet, Magnetic, Magic. It's existence defines it as natural. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. At the very least, until further understanding, we would have to include a new law giving exemption to magic.
Quote from: En_RouteThese feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature.
The same goes for miracles and god. Proof of god would not abolish science. Science would change to comply with gods existence. If god created the laws of nature, then he created them with himself as an exemption. It would go something like this... According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.
Revert back to the magic example for clarity. It's harder to comprehend the god hypothesis in this manner but I think it still fits just fine.
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.
Will do. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 15, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?
I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere. Technically, to believe is not to claim to know. You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PMAtheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism.
A minor quibble: "Absence of . . ." is an aphorism that
sounds like a truism, but is not. See for example, Victor Stenger's article on the subject. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html)
A truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention." The fact is, sometimes absence of evidence
is evidence of absence. I prefer not to use the word "proof" here as it applies more to logic and maths than to science.
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.
Neither side cares to move closer to the other. The issue is peace. There really is no conflict as long as atheists don't attempt to force theists to abandon their faith and theists don't attempt to force atheists to adopt their faith, in one form or another. We can just settle into the same neighborhood, speak different languages, and have only superficial interaction, just like me and the Muslim family down the street.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 15, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.
Neither side cares to move closer to the other. The issue is peace. There really is no conflict as long as atheists don't attempt to force theists to abandon their faith and theists don't attempt to force atheists to adopt their faith, in one form or another. We can just settle into the same neighborhood, speak different languages, and have only superficial interaction, just like me and the Muslim family down the street.
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?
Quote from: Recusant on June 15, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PMAtheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism.
A minor quibble: "Absence of . . ." is an aphorism that sounds like a truism, but is not. See for example, Victor Stenger's article on the subject. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html)
A truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention." The fact is, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I prefer not to use the word "proof" here as it applies more to logic and maths than to science.
Recusant, Thanks for drawing my attention to this article which has sparked off some further readings. I will try to marshal my ideas at some later date.
Quote from: En_RouteThere is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.
I hold with the bolded statement, but I don't believe that absence of proof equates to proof of absence. Absence of proof may not be anything more the lack of knowledge. But......in this case should not the Burden Of Proof lie with the party that is claimng the proofless thing exists?
Quote from: genericguyWe place magic outside of science without a second thought. We do this with such ease because we have done so for so long. Let's examine, though, what would happen if a wizards wand were to be found that gave magic power to its wielder. Our understandings of the laws of nature would make room for the existence of magic. Maybe we would add it to our list of known energys... Kinetic, Electromagnet, Magnetic, Magic. It's existence defines it as natural. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. At the very least, until further understanding, we would have to include a new law giving exemption to magic.
Athur C. Clarkes third rule:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
What I can't figure out.....Genericguy proves Clarke right, or Clark proves Genericguy right??????
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?
It's rather arrogant of you to think that theists can't see reason. I'll let you ponder that for awhile. No one is asking anyone to keep ideas to themselves. My post dealt with either side attempting to force the other side to conform. Discussing and sharing ideas and thoughts is not attempting to force either atheism or theism on anyone. I'm not sure how you concluded that from my post. If sharing and discussing becomes impossible because of the language difference (as it apparently is in our case), then the conversation can become more superficial in order to keep peace.
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 15, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?
I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere. Technically, to believe is not to claim to know. You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction.
I look at it more as politely giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, seeing things from a more generous perspective.
QuoteAtheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.
It's not supposed to, and I've known some atheists who'd disagree violently with "absence of proof (or evidence) . . . "
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.
I don't see that that's so at all. Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point. And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.
Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them. Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't in the context of what I need from life.
Cats gives a tolerant and rational perspective. I agree.
If there is no attempt at compulsion or coercion from either side then the motivation for passionate argument (as opposed to debate) comes down to tolerance. I personally don't care enough about other people to bother myself with what they believe. Go ahead and chat away to your invisible friend if it makes you happy. Oh, I like to read a good debate and occasionally even THINK about it, but arguing reason against belief (and vice versa) is drinking from a sieve.
It seems that no matter how futile the argument may be we'll still have a go... just in case the other person isn't really convinced of their own beliefs. How terribly insulting.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 16, 2012, 03:53:32 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?
It's rather arrogant of you to think that theists can't see reason. I'll let you ponder that for awhile. No one is asking anyone to keep ideas to themselves. My post dealt with either side attempting to force the other side to conform. Discussing and sharing ideas and thoughts is not attempting to force either atheism or theism on anyone. I'm not sure how you concluded that from my post. If sharing and discussing becomes impossible because of the language difference (as it apparently is in our case), then the conversation can become more superficial in order to keep peace.
Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.
If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would simply become an add-on to the other laws. Effectively an element of existence not constrained by the mundane laws that the rest of us have to contend with. Disregarding people who break the law consider a police car. It can happily exceed the speed limit that the rest of us can't. God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true. However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true. However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.
75% of atheist do concede this point; they are known as weak atheists. The remainder do not concede this point and are known as strong atheist.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 16, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.
I don't see that that's so at all. Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point. And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.
Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them. Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.
The problem is that by definition atheists
don't think theists have a point. I have theist friends,acquaintances and relatives who are fully aware that I think their religious views are baseless. I see no need to pretend otherwise and prefer relationships based on honesty rather than a bland pretence that there is no fundamental difference of opinion. Nobody has to fall out over it; in fact it is more a subject for good-natured joshing than any kind of acrimony. I have no interest in converting anybody. As you say, for many people religious belief fulfils, or appears to fulfil, psychological and emotional needs. That doesn't validate those beliefs as beliefs.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.
I think you're attempting to frame your question in an exclusive manner that precludes a contradictory answer. This is a semantic argument built around the word 'law' and attempts to exclude that which does not under the remit of laws. But laws are a subset of 'all that is known'. There is room for a lot to exist outside scientific laws and 'all that is known'. For example any human thought AFAIK there are no scientific laws that explain how we think or could be applied that could predict what any one person would think next or in an hour's time.
I don't think that a theistic god is beyond the realms of the scientific method. If one can come up with a hypothesis then one can test it. If the tests support the hypothesis a theory can be framed that both accommodates what is known and can be predictive of that which is unknown. But so far nobody has even been able to form a solid God Hypothesis (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8102.0) So the issue is not 'is god within the purview of the scientific method' but 'how can god be defined to bring it within the purview of the scientific method?'
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 16, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.
I don't see that that's so at all. Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point. And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.
Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them. Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.
But personally I have come to the conclusion that I don't think they have a point. I also see more harm than good coming from the point they hold. That harm is both active and passive. Active in the sense of terrorism and science denial and passive in lying to children about an afterlife.
Faith is by definition unreasonable because it is a view held in spite of evidence or in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:21:36 PM
I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true. However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.
75% of atheist do concede this point; they are known as weak atheists. The remainder do not concede this point and are known as strong atheist.
As I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't. However I'd argue that the dichotomy is not as absolute as that definition sounds. I would be a strong(ish) atheist as regards say the Christian god because the concept is philosophically incoherent and therefore using the powers of logic and reasoning available to me I reject the notion. I say strong(ish) because we can never be absolutely certain of anything. I'm a weak(er) atheist in the sense that I cannot categorically rule out the existence of some form of supernatural entity which governs our affairs but absent any evidence I consider the possibility of academic interest only. I do find the strong atheist position hard to defend and that's why I think atheists should accept that absence of the proof of god or gods is not proof per se that they do not exist.
Quote from: En-RouteAs I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't.
Is this saying that a "weak" atheist doesn't believe in God becuase he/she finds no compelling evidence to?
And a "strong" Atheist says there is "definitely not a god"? To make a positive statement like this would not the strong atheist need to offer up some evidence to back up his point?
There is no "evidence" of life on any planets in other solar systems, just probablity's. Does this prove none exists?
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.
I think you're attempting to frame your question in an exclusive manner that precludes a contradictory answer. This is a semantic argument built around the word 'law' and attempts to exclude that which does not under the remit of laws. But laws are a subset of 'all that is known'. There is room for a lot to exist outside scientific laws and 'all that is known'. For example any human thought AFAIK there are no scientific laws that explain how we think or could be applied that could predict what any one person would think next or in an hour's time.
I don't think that a theistic god is beyond the realms of the scientific method. If one can come up with a hypothesis then one can test it. If the tests support the hypothesis a theory can be framed that both accommodates what is known and can be predictive of that which is unknown. But so far nobody has even been able to form a solid God Hypothesis (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8102.0) So the issue is not 'is god within the purview of the scientific method' but 'how can god be defined to bring it within the purview of the scientific method?'
This a quote lifted from a book reviews in amazon.com which puts the point more succintly than I could:
"On the other hand, if religion claims "there exists a supernatural being, outside the natural world, who is beyond the laws of physics and nature," that is decidedly /not/ formulatable as a scientifically studiable hypothesis, since science deals with nature and the natural world, and not with things "outside" of it. Science can study the physical claims; not the metaphysical claims."
Quote from: technolud on June 16, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: En-RouteAs I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't.
Is this saying that a "weak" atheist doesn't believe in God becuase he/she finds no compelling evidence to?
And a "strong" Atheist says there is "definitely not a god"? To make a positive statement like this would not the strong atheist need to offer up some evidence to back up his point?
There is no "evidence" of life on any planets in other solar systems, just probablity's. Does this prove none exists?
From Spectrum of theistic probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)
QuoteDawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.
The 'weak' atheist is what Dawkins calls the 'De facto atheist'
Quote from: technolud on June 16, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: En-RouteAs I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't.
Is this saying that a "weak" atheist doesn't believe in God becuase he/she finds no compelling evidence to?
And a "strong" Atheist says there is "definitely not a god"? To make a positive statement like this would not the strong atheist need to offer up some evidence to back up his point?
There is no "evidence" of life on any planets in other solar systems, just probablity's. Does this prove none exists?
I'd tend to agree with that. As I said,one's position may be stronger in relation to specific gods. In my view, the Christian God is a philosophical bust so within the framework of human reasoning I believe it to be false. However, the solution to the mystery probably is beyond human reasoning, or if it isn't there is still vital information missing, so no-one assert anything in the absolute certainty that they are correct.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 16, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.
I don't see that that's so at all. Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point. And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.
Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them. Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.
But personally I have come to the conclusion that I don't think they have a point. I also see more harm than good coming from the point they hold. That harm is both active and passive. Active in the sense of terrorism and science denial and passive in lying to children about an afterlife.
Faith is by definition unreasonable because it is a view held in spite of evidence or in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign. The more liberal, inclusive strands of Christianity strike me as relatively conducive to social harmony. The views of the religious right in the USA on the other hand enshrine a degree of hatred and bigotry which is at the other end of the spectrum.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 04:24:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.
I think you're attempting to frame your question in an exclusive manner that precludes a contradictory answer. This is a semantic argument built around the word 'law' and attempts to exclude that which does not under the remit of laws. But laws are a subset of 'all that is known'. There is room for a lot to exist outside scientific laws and 'all that is known'. For example any human thought AFAIK there are no scientific laws that explain how we think or could be applied that could predict what any one person would think next or in an hour's time.
I don't think that a theistic god is beyond the realms of the scientific method. If one can come up with a hypothesis then one can test it. If the tests support the hypothesis a theory can be framed that both accommodates what is known and can be predictive of that which is unknown. But so far nobody has even been able to form a solid God Hypothesis (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8102.0) So the issue is not 'is god within the purview of the scientific method' but 'how can god be defined to bring it within the purview of the scientific method?'
This a quote lifted from a book reviews in amazon.com which puts the point more succintly than I could:
"On the other hand, if religion claims "there exists a supernatural being, outside the natural world, who is beyond the laws of physics and nature," that is decidedly /not/ formulatable as a scientifically studiable hypothesis, since science deals with nature and the natural world, and not with things "outside" of it. Science can study the physical claims; not the metaphysical claims."
I agree with that last point.
However I joined in when it was stated by somebody that 'If god could be measured' well if god can be measured then he/she/it can be studied in a scientific framework. If god can't be measured then he/she/it can't be studied. However our ability to measure has changed over the years telescopes and microscopes being two prime examples of technology expanding human perception. The scientific method can be applied to every question however if the question can not be stated as a rigerious hypothesis and/or requires measuments beyond our current technology the scientific method can not yield a fruitful answer. So the existance of god can be addressed be the scientific method but at the moment we have neither a workable hypothysis nor suitable instrumentality to make any head way. Which is not the same as saying God is beyond science and outside its remity.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 16, 2012, 05:07:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.
I don't see that that's so at all. Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point. And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.
Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them. Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.
But personally I have come to the conclusion that I don't think they have a point. I also see more harm than good coming from the point they hold. That harm is both active and passive. Active in the sense of terrorism and science denial and passive in lying to children about an afterlife.
Faith is by definition unreasonable because it is a view held in spite of evidence or in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign. The more liberal, inclusive strands of Christianity strike me as relatively conducive to social harmony. The views of the religious right in the USA on the other hand enshrine a degree of hatred and bigotry which is at the other end of the spectrum.
I agree with what you say. In fact my first ever serious thread at the Richard Dawkins forum was basically about what would happen if/when/as atheism erodes theism. What will fill the gap for those people incapable of forming their world view without the comfort provided by the superstition that a God exists?
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign.
I don't fault theists for believing in gods, as I did for most of my life. I understand that side of things. I fault theists, and in fact, anybody, who holds views that are immovable, however. Religion isn't the only concept on which some people will refuse to budge their ideology. We see it often in politics, economics, environment, etc. I agree with you that we could not possibly know the result of the entire world dropping their beliefs in higher powers. Japan, commonly called the atheist nation, is peaceful now. However, if they are sufficiently pushed or marginalized by the world around them, they could become irrational quickly. If religion disappeared, I think people would still feel a need to belong to something bigger than themselves, and would turn to groups that align themselves with certain political ideologies or economic theories, and follow the leaders of those groups stubbornly. When the economy is tough in any country, groups that tend to get the most blame are immigrant groups for taking jobs. I have seen it here, and I have seen it in places like Germany and France when I was living in Europe, where the citizenry of those countries have become increasingly hostile to the Turkish immigrant minority.
EDIT: I also fault myself when I find myself being stubborn about my beliefs in arguments without paying alternatives their proper due. It happens to me from time to time. Violence, however, has never been the result.
Quote from: tank/dawkins7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
How does this statement differ from a theists "faith" that god exists?
If a strong atheist states that positively no god exists they should be prepared to back it up with factual evidence.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F8672%2Feusathinky.gif&hash=4f50e405ab4cee1041bcbc85661e6f6baf884fb5) I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=5): "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.
I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy. :-[
Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.
Quote from: technolud on June 16, 2012, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: tank/dawkins7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
How does this statement differ from a theists "faith" that god exists?
If a strong atheist states that positively no god exists they should be prepared to back it up with factual evidence.
It doesn't differ in any meaningful way and that is exactly the point that Dawkins was making in that part of The God Delusion. Dawkins points out that to blindly assert that God does not exist it comparably to blindly asserting that God does exist. However so called strong atheists usually counter his position that as there in no evidence for god it is reasonable to state there is no God. I sit myself as a 6 on the Dawkins scale. I would never state that I believe (as in have faith) that there is no God because I can't prove that position.
Quote from: Recusant on June 16, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F8672%2Feusathinky.gif&hash=4f50e405ab4cee1041bcbc85661e6f6baf884fb5) I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=5): "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.
I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy. :-[
Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.
All fair points well made. I should qualify my statement that in my opinion I only consider theists unreasonable when it comes to theism.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
But personally I have come to the conclusion that I don't think they have a point. I also see more harm than good coming from the point they hold.
I think we're talking about more than one point. When theists point out that not everything is known yet -- well, I'm quite sure that's true. I certainly hope it's true. When they point out that the existence of a god may someday be proven, or at least justified much better than it is now -- well, maybe. As someone else has already pointed out, there are plenty of things accepted as a given now that used to be considered impossible or magical. When theists point out much good has been inspired by peoples faith, I can't argue with that. Faith's certainly not the only thing that's inspired goodness, or the only thing capable of doing so, but it's done its share.
QuoteThat harm is both active and passive. Active in the sense of terrorism and science denial and passive in lying to children about an afterlife.
I'll never deny faith has also inspired a lot of bad things, but again I don't think it's unique in that. I also don't think that its as much the cause as the excuse for evil. If religious beliefs vanished this instant, I don't think it'd take more than 2 seconds for people to find other reasons for their evil or stupidity.
I don't think one can be considered to be lying about something one truly believes in. Passing along a misconception or mistake, maybe, but not lying. Frankly, I don't think belief in an afterlife does that much harm. It may be a delusion, I think it is, and it can be twisted to support evil uses as easily as most other beliefs, but for the most part I think it only serves to calm the common anxiety about death and I have no problem with that.
QuoteFaith is by definition unreasonable because it is a view held in spite of evidence or in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
Which goes back to my original concession, just because they don't have the evidence now doesn't mean they never will, tho admittedly I don't think it's likely. I wouldn't like to consider everyone unreasonable who had a theory they couldn't prove yet.
As to the "in spite of evidence", I wasn't aware there was any evidence against the existence of a god, or that it was even possible to have evidence against something described as being outside nature. Which I admit is unfair and special pleading, but it works against theists too -- they can never claim, honestly, to
know their god exists, only to believe it. That's an incredibly big stick in the craw for many of them.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would simply become an add-on to the other laws. Effectively an element of existence not constrained by the mundane laws that the rest of us have to contend with. Disregarding people who break the law consider a police car. It can happily exceed the speed limit that the rest of us can't. God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
That is a great example. There must be laws in regards to diplomatic immunity. How else would a policeman know the person is exempt? According to the laws of the government, the person is exempt from the laws of the government. This person is not outside of the legal system, as god is not outside of science.
Edit: added the god bit at the end.
Quote from: technolud on June 16, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Is this saying that a "weak" atheist doesn't believe in God becuase he/she finds no compelling evidence to?
And a "strong" Atheist says there is "definitely not a god"? To make a positive statement like this would not the strong atheist need to offer up some evidence to back up his point?
There is no "evidence" of life on any planets in other solar systems, just probablity's. Does this prove none exists?
I disagree with this. I would probably self identify as a week atheist but I don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, I do not believe because I don't, simple really. All books in favor of a god don't do anything for me and certainly push me away from the idea of them, the only concept of god I can actually take serious is the deistic one and I am just using the definition of god as a creator of everything around us, whether that creation was intentional or not is another kettle of fish.
The lack of evidence isn't really that important to me, as how do you really define evidence for a god. The concept is so incredibly vague where would you even look in the first place, lets just say somebody find the remains of a human figure with wings that turned out to be legit, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a christian god never mind a non-dom-god, just as the religious books that happen to cover historical events don't imply their god exists, or like if we found the skeletal remains of a Minotaur it wouldn't imply the Greek gods exist. I think you either really believe in one or you don't. If it can't be defined you are never going to find evidence for it, and when it has been defined the god of the gaps has occurred.
Quote from: Recusant on June 16, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F8672%2Feusathinky.gif&hash=4f50e405ab4cee1041bcbc85661e6f6baf884fb5) I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=5): "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.
I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy. :-[
Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the subject of theists. On the matter of religious experience we diverge. I think you are conflating two distinct senses of the word "irrational" . The experience of beauty is sensual and does not involve a process of reasoning. In that sense it is "irrational". It is self-contained and self-justifying; we can presumably track the firing of the relevant neurons in the observer;s brain.
When someone claims to have felt moved by the spirit of the Lord, they are attributing an external significance to some form of emotional arousal, excitement or whatever. There is no evidence for this claim this other than a purely subjective conviction. It seems to me that it is irrational in the sense of "contrary to good reason" to rely on an intense emotional state as a basis for subscribing to a theology.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 12:11:20 PM
Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?
God would simply become an add-on to the other laws. Effectively an element of existence not constrained by the mundane laws that the rest of us have to contend with. Disregarding people who break the law consider a police car. It can happily exceed the speed limit that the rest of us can't. God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.
That is a great example. There must be laws in regards to diplomatic immunity. How else would a policeman know the person is exempt? According to the laws of the government, the person is exempt from the laws of the government. This person is not outside of the legal system.
Diplomatic Immunity does not apply in all cases and is conditional on meeting set criteria ; it can even be waived. A diplomat therefore is regulated by the law though he may avail of exceptions from the rules that apply to other people. In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 16, 2012, 08:23:25 PM
[
As to the "in spite of evidence", I wasn't aware there was any evidence against the existence of a god, or that it was even possible to have evidence against something described as being outside nature. Which I admit is unfair and special pleading, but it works against theists too -- they can never claim, honestly, to know their god exists, only to believe it. That's an incredibly big stick in the craw for many of them.
The concept of the Christian god can be shown (in the view of many atheists,including yours truly) to be self-contradictory on a number of grounds; the counter-arguments are not simply confined to those surrounding lack of evidence but are also sited in the realm of philosophy.
Energy - Wikipedia
QuoteIn physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 08:45:06 PM
In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.
If a god has the ability to do work, then the god would be using a form of energy. As per the magic example, perhaps this new energy would be added to the list of known energies... Kinetic, magnetic, "gods will". Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.
Edit: last sentence. Me no done good at talk speaking.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 09:07:00 PM
Energy - Wikipedia
QuoteIn physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 08:45:06 PM
In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.
If a god has the ability to do work, then the god would be using a form of energy. As per the magic example, perhaps this new energy would be added to the list of known energies... Kinetic, magnetic, "gods will". Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.
Edit: last sentence. Me no done good at talk speaking.
It's work, but not as we know it. The definition of the Christian god is one of an entity which exists outside nature. Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 10:59:34 PM
Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.
"So say we all."
Redefine your god, or he/she/it doesn't exist.
Edit: What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."
Or at least provide a reason for me to think otherwise.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 11:07:57 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 10:59:34 PM
Your assertion that nothing can exist outside nature therefore boils down to an assertion that a god defined in this way cannot exist.
"So say we all."
Redefine your god, or he/she/it doesn't exist.
It's not my god. There are a number of valid arguments to support atheism. I just don't think this is one of them.
It does nothing to support atheism. After all, "god works in mysterious ways". There is more than enough room for theists to agree, although I doubt many will. What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."
(your, as in non-personal your)
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 11:22:01 PM
It does nothing to support atheism. After all, "god works in mysterious ways". There is more than enough room for theists to agree, although I doubt many will. What I should have said was: "in my opinion, you need to redefine your god or provide an explanation for your gods exemption."
(your, as in non-personal your)
A problem I have with your argument (your- personal !) is that it depends on the assertion that if anything exists it is therefore part of nature. What is your authority for this?
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 09:07:00 PM
Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.
Is this statement not logically sound? Provide evidence to the contrary and I will gladly concede.
If nature is defined as the sum of everything in existence, the statement holds its water. The definition for the purpose of this discussion has been provided, so a problem, I see not.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 11:32:14 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 09:07:00 PM
Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is everything's existence.
Is this statement not logically sound? Provide evidence to the contrary and I will gladly concede.
The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 11:48:32 PM
The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.
All it means, is that I label this specific version of god "supernatural", as in against the
known laws of nature.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 16, 2012, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 16, 2012, 11:48:32 PM
The statement depends on the premise that nature is everything's existence. That seems to me to be an assertion that nothing supernatural can exist. In other words, the strong atheist position.
All it means, is that I label this specific version of god "supernatural", as in against the known laws of nature.
This I think comes back to your proposition that If God were found to exist he would thereby become part of nature. But god as defined is not part of the material universe, so this does not follow.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 13, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?
QuoteThings that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
My op.
I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions. But do I understand what is being said here is that:
1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.
Is this correct? Any Theists want to dive in here? Animateddirt, you started this mess.
Quote from: technolud on June 17, 2012, 12:10:06 AM
I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions. But do I understand what is being said here is that:
1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.
Is this correct? Any Theists want to dive in here? Animateddirt, you started this mess.
No one is arguing for this. As I understand it, GenericGuy is saying that there cannot be a supernatural being because anything that exists is by definition natural.
Quote from: En_Route on June 17, 2012, 12:23:39 AM
Quote from: technolud on June 17, 2012, 12:10:06 AM
I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions. But do I understand what is being said here is that:
1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.
Is this correct? Any Theists want to dive in here? Animateddirt, you started this mess.
No one is arguing for this. As I understand it, GenericGuy is saying that there cannot be a supernatural being because anything that exists is by definition natural.
Yes, and this still leaves room for god(s). The goal here was to try to prove that a god hypotheses is a scientific hypothesis.
OK. So if God exists, he is natural, not super-natural and thereby his existance can be subject to a scientific hypothesis?
Or is a "God Hypothesis" something different?
This is sounding pretty tautological to me.
Quote from: technolud on June 17, 2012, 01:51:15 AM
OK. So if God exists, he is natural, not super-natural and thereby his existance can be subject to a scientific hypothesis?
Yes.
Quote
Or is a "God Hypothesis" something different?
No. Some people try to separate the two, but they are the same IMO.
Quote
This is sounding pretty tautological to me.
Me too.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
I apologize (US spelling) if this sounds blunt, but a person who thinks that atheists see reason better than theists is arrogant. That simple. Isaac Newton (to give an older example) and Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne (to give more recent examples) were/are theists. No one on this forum can claim to be more intelligent or to have accomplished more than they have. To say that they did not "see reason" is, well, in a word, stupid.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.
If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?
First, there is nothing poisonous about personal faith. It has saved more than one person from suicide or other tragedy. Second, you are also proselytizing (US spelling), if that means to try to convince someone else of your view. If "proselytizing" means sharing your thoughts and opinions, that is called "freedom of speech," which we value highly in the US. If "proselytizing" means forcing or coercing someone to adopt your views, it is no less odious in the atheistic context than in the theistic.
1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence. (credit to asmo for definition clarity)
2. Any assertion of truth in regards to a subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.
3. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. That, by definition, is supernatural.
4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.
5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves remain in harmony with the subject.
6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.
I hope this expresses my argument with more clarity.
Edit: the following is my revised version. This time I express that this is my opinion and admit it could be wrong, although I see no reason that it is. Also, I am not opposed to suggestions if someone feels inclined to provide any.
1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence.
2. Nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature. The subjects existence is proof that the laws of nature do not work in such a way that would prevent it from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.
3. Any assertion of truth in regards to the subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.
4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.
5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves continue to remain in harmony with the subject.
6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 17, 2012, 05:13:36 AM
1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence. (credit to asmo for definition clarity)
2. Any assertion of truth in regards to a subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.
3. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. That, by definition, is supernatural.
4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.
5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves remain in harmony with the subject.
6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.
I hope this expresses my argument with more clarity.
By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2012, 03:21:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.
I apologize (US spelling) if this sounds blunt, but a person who thinks that atheists see reason better than theists is arrogant. That simple. Isaac Newton (to give an older example) and Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne (to give more recent examples) were/are theists. No one on this forum can claim to be more intelligent or to have accomplished more than they have. To say that they did not "see reason" is, well, in a word, stupid.
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2012, 10:13:14 AM
I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.
If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?
First, there is nothing poisonous about personal faith. It has saved more than one person from suicide or other tragedy. Second, you are also proselytizing (US spelling), if that means to try to convince someone else of your view. If "proselytizing" means sharing your thoughts and opinions, that is called "freedom of speech," which we value highly in the US. If "proselytizing" means forcing or coercing someone to adopt your views, it is no less odious in the atheistic context than in the theistic.
I called you 'mad' once so I think I can't complain if you call me arrogant ;D
Quote from: En_Route on June 17, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?
Why would you want to prove them wrong?
Quote from: Crow on June 17, 2012, 02:29:42 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 17, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?
Why would you want to prove them wrong?
Because if you can't, then you don't have any basis for argument. You can't just assert whatever suits the
purposes of your argument; you have to justify it.
First, this is not an argument to disprove god. I am disagreeing with the op of this thread. I do not believe the confrontations are futile. It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but if someone says god created the universe, IMO that is a scientific claim. No scientific claim should ever be ignored. The reason we ignore the god hypotheses now is because we have been doing so for so long, without a second thought. New evidence, however, would warrant scientific attention. This works even on a personal level. The information may just be new to me, I use logic and science to determin if it's possible according to our current understanding of the laws of nature.
I can not back up my argument without proving that a claim for gods existence is a scientific claim. Those six points are my proof. As for the first one, is time a part of the material universe? It exists but it has no mass. Time is included in the laws of nature even though it has no material existence.
The first point is an assertion you have to show is true. Not everyone accepts that time is in fact a property of the material universe or subject to the laws of nature, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. That still gets you nowhere. Just because you can point to something which has no material existence but which nevertheless exists and is subject to the laws of nature does not mean that everything which has a non- material existence is subject to the laws of nature.
Quote from: En_Route on June 17, 2012, 07:22:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 17, 2012, 07:44:58 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 17, 2012, 07:22:13 PM
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?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 17, 2012, 09:30:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 07:02:00 AM
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 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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 18, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
"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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 18, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 18, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
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.
I think we've just proven why futile confrontations between theists and atheists are inevitable. Remember the OP?
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 18, 2012, 03:18:41 PM
I think we've just proven why futile confrontations between theists and atheists are inevitable. Remember the OP?
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Crow on June 18, 2012, 02:48:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 18, 2012, 11:27:23 AM
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)...
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 18, 2012, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 07:02:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 18, 2012, 06:22:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: Crow on June 18, 2012, 11:27:23 AM
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)...
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 18, 2012, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 07:02:00 AM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 07:48:07 PM
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."
Quote from: En_Route
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.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 07:48:07 PM
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."
Quote from: En_Route
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.
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 09:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 09:09:58 PM
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.
Please know, I say this with much respect, as I have very much enjoyed this conversation.
I have been trying my hardest to avoid using a god, or more importantly a specific god, as an example, both because i did not want this to become a theological discussion and because of definition discrepancies. As you are arguing for an exemption for this theoritical being, i would ask you to provide evidence of its existence in the first place or it is irrelevant. From the begining i have stated that science needs to get involved when a person says "god exists, here is my evidence". I have provided a theory in which states, roughly, "nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature" and I have provided my evidence:
"If the subject is prooven to exist, then we know 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."
Everything that is known to exist gives added support to my theory, but, as with any other scientific theory, it could be wrong. It can, however be considered fact (according to me, at least), but only as our understanding of the speed of light can be considered fact. By that I mean to say, as long as we include the subtext: until proven otherwise. I am justified in considering this theory to be factual as I have provided evidence that is suported by everthing that is known to exist. An arbitrarily mentioned, theoretical purple dragon with magic powers that literally defy the laws of nature, will not hold up against my theory unless you provide proof that the dragons exists and its magic powers do in fact defy the laws of nature. You are not justified in your claim that supernatural things
could exist because you have provided no evidence to suport it. You are however justified in believing it is true just as a theist is justified in believing in their god. The assertion of fact needs to be proceeded by evidence for the claim to be justified.
With that said, here is my opinion on this hypothetical/theoretical being.
As you have defined this creator "all-powerful and is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself"... If you build a sand castle, do you not build it in such a way that you would be able to destroy it later? If this god gave it a unbreakable (all-powerful, don't forget) metal structure and made the sand so as to never move, would he be able to break it? It's a logical fallacy to think he would we able to. He would be bound by the laws of the sandcastle.
As this is turning into a theological discussion, I will leave it at that. If you feel compelled to respond and wish for me to respond, I will do so. As of now, though, I've enjoyed this discussion and thanks for participating.
P.s. please forgive all the spelling errors, as I am dyslexic. It's difficult for me to grasp proper spelling.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 18, 2012, 09:09:58 PM
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.
Please know, I say this with much respect, as I have very much enjoyed this conversation.
I have been trying my hardest to avoid using a god, or more importantly a specific god, as an example, both because i did not want this to become a theological discussion and because of definition discrepancies. As you are arguing for an exemption for this theoritical being, i would ask you to provide evidence of its existence in the first place or it is irrelevant. From the begining i have stated that science needs to get involved when a person says "god exists, here is my evidence". I have provided a theory in which states, roughly, "nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature" and I have provided my evidence:
"If the subject is prooven to exist, then we know 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."
Everything that is known to exist gives added support to my theory, but, as with any other scientific theory, it could be wrong. It can, however be considered fact (according to me, at least), but only as our understanding of the speed of light can be considered fact. By that I mean to say, as long as we include the subtext: until proven otherwise. I am justified in considering this theory to be factual as I have provided evidence that is suported by everthing that is known to exist. An arbitrarily mentioned, theoretical purple dragon with magic powers that literally defy the laws of nature, will not hold up against my theory unless you provide proof that the dragons exists and its magic powers do in fact defy the laws of nature. You are not justified in your claim that supernatural things could exist because you have provided no evidence to suport it. You are however justified in believing it is true just as a theist is justified in believing in their god. The assertion of fact needs to be proceeded by evidence for the claim to be justified.
With that said, here is my opinion on this hypothetical/theoretical being.
As you have defined this creator "all-powerful and is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself"... If you build a sand castle, do you not build it in such a way that you would be able to destroy it later? If this god gave it a unbreakable (all-powerful, don't forget) metal structure and made the sand so as to never move, would he be able to break it? It's a logical fallacy to think he would we able to. He would be bound by the laws of the sandcastle.
As this is turning into a theological discussion, I will leave it at that. If you feel compelled to respond and wish for me to respond, I will do so. As of now, though, I've enjoyed this discussion and thanks for participating.
P.s. please forgive all the spelling errors, as I am dyslexic. It's difficult for me to grasp proper spelling.
You say: "If the subject is prooven to exist, then we know 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." Your argument really assumes its own conclusion. The existence of something outside the material universe doesn't mean that it is subject to the laws of that universe; the fact that the scope of the laws of nature are limited to the material universe means that they have no bearing on phenomena outside that universe. A creator-god could indeed create two or indeed an infinity of material universes with completely contradictory sets of laws. according to you he would be subject to
all these contradictory laws .I don't have to prove a supernatural power exists to discredit your theory because, with respect, your theory is just an assertion.The onus of proof falls on he who asserts. You are the one who is claiming that there can be no such thing as a supernatural being, but you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I'd also be interested if there is any reputable writer in this area whom you could cite for me who advocates your line of argument.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
As you have defined this creator "all-powerful and is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself"... If you build a sand castle, do you not build it in such a way that you would be able to destroy it later? If this god gave it a unbreakable (all-powerful, don't forget) metal structure and made the sand so as to never move, would he be able to break it? It's a logical fallacy to think he would we able to. He would be bound by the laws of the sandcastle.
I remember this riddle. If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so big he cannot move it?
Quote from: fester30 on June 19, 2012, 07:44:03 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 18, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
As you have defined this creator "all-powerful and is not bound by any laws, least of all those he set up himself"... If you build a sand castle, do you not build it in such a way that you would be able to destroy it later? If this god gave it a unbreakable (all-powerful, don't forget) metal structure and made the sand so as to never move, would he be able to break it? It's a logical fallacy to think he would we able to. He would be bound by the laws of the sandcastle.
I remember this riddle. If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so big he cannot move it?
Of course he could if he wanted to, he's all powerful that means he would not be constrained by human logic.
Quote from: En_Route on June 19, 2012, 12:43:25 AM
You say: "If the subject is prooven to exist, then we know 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." Your argument really assumes its own conclusion. The existence of something outside the material universe doesn't mean that it is subject to the laws of that universe; the fact that the scope of the laws of nature are limited to the material universe means that they have no bearing on phenomena outside that universe. A creator-god could indeed create two or indeed an infinity of material universes with completely contradictory sets of laws. according to you he would be subject to all these contradictory laws .I don't have to prove a supernatural power exists to discredit your theory because, with respect, your theory is just an assertion.The onus of proof falls on he who asserts. You are the one who is claiming that there can be no such thing as a supernatural being, but you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I'd also be interested if there is any reputable writer in this area whom you could cite for me who advocates your line of argument.
I understand why you have issues with this, but there's also been no compelling evidence that I'm aware of that anything can exist outside the laws of nature. Wouldn't the onus thus be on the person who claims it's possible to prove that? Yes, Genericguy is making an assertion, but there is evidence to support what he's saying. No object has ever been shown to defy the laws of gravity on earth without at least an equal and opposite force. No living creature has ever been known to come back to life after dying. There is no real documentation to prove some guy named Jesus walked across water. And so on and so forth. Maybe he didn't cite enough evidence in his statement (with all due respect) but the evidence is there. I fail to see any evidence to disprove that assertion.
Quote from: Firebird on June 19, 2012, 10:28:23 PM
I understand why you have issues with this, but there's also been no compelling evidence that I'm aware of that anything can exist outside the laws of nature. Wouldn't the onus thus be on the person who claims it's possible to prove that? Yes, Genericguy is making an assertion, but there is evidence to support what he's saying. No object has ever been shown to defy the laws of gravity on earth without at least an equal and opposite force. No living creature has ever been known to come back to life after dying. There is no real documentation to prove some guy named Jesus walked across water. And so on and so forth. Maybe he didn't cite enough evidence in his statement (with all due respect) but the evidence is there. I fail to see any evidence to disprove that assertion.
But its not impossible. Just because we don't have the evidence doesn't mean its impossible, however if we have evidence that had closed up the holes that nothing can exist outside our laws of nature then Genericguys point would be correct, but we don't therefore it needs to be considered as a possibility. Even though Genericguy may be correct so far we do not have enough knowledge to make such a claim, especially when there are many theories that use multiple universes or dimensions and if any of them are relevant to our laws of nature.
If we ignore such possibilities then science becomes dulled and pointless, science is neutral and develops where evidence exists, such assertions without evidence are the same as those which are made by the thousands of religions about a god existing.
Quote from: Firebird on June 19, 2012, 10:28:23 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 19, 2012, 12:43:25 AM
You say: "If the subject is prooven to exist, then we know 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." Your argument really assumes its own conclusion. The existence of something outside the material universe doesn't mean that it is subject to the laws of that universe; the fact that the scope of the laws of nature are limited to the material universe means that they have no bearing on phenomena outside that universe. A creator-god could indeed create two or indeed an infinity of material universes with completely contradictory sets of laws. according to you he would be subject to all these contradictory laws .I don't have to prove a supernatural power exists to discredit your theory because, with respect, your theory is just an assertion.The onus of proof falls on he who asserts. You are the one who is claiming that there can be no such thing as a supernatural being, but you cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I'd also be interested if there is any reputable writer in this area whom you could cite for me who advocates your line of argument.
I understand why you have issues with this, but there's also been no compelling evidence that I'm aware of that anything can exist outside the laws of nature. Wouldn't the onus thus be on the person who claims it's possible to prove that? Yes, Genericguy is making an assertion, but there is evidence to support what he's saying. No object has ever been shown to defy the laws of gravity on earth without at least an equal and opposite force. No living creature has ever been known to come back to life after dying. There is no real documentation to prove some guy named Jesus walked across water. And so on and so forth. Maybe he didn't cite enough evidence in his statement (with all due respect) but the evidence is there. I fail to see any evidence to disprove that assertion.
There is no evidence of any description in favour of anything supernatural.But the person who asserts that it is
simply not possible for a supernatural entity or entities to exist has to prove that assertion if he makes it the premise of his whole argument. There is a lack of evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, but there is no conclusive evidence against it either, in fact in my view there is no evidence against it.
Quote from: Crow on June 19, 2012, 11:01:04 PM
Even though Genericguy may be correct so far we do not have enough knowledge to make such a claim, especially when there are many theories that use multiple universes or dimensions and if any of them are relevant to our laws of nature.
I would just like to point out, multiple universes, each with independent sets of laws, would work perfectly with my "theory". In fact it's one of the things that got me thinking about this in the first place. Let's say the laws of universe A = x, and the laws of universe B = z, then the laws of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existance, would be as follows: In universe A, x happens, AND in universe B, z happens. As tank has pointed out "laws are a subset of 'all that is known'". This is my understanding of what the laws of nature are... All that is known.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 19, 2012, 11:29:11 PM
Even though Genericguy may be correct so far we do not have enough knowledge to make such a claim, especially when there are many theories that use multiple universes or dimensions and if any of them are relevant to our laws of nature.
Then it wouldn't be nature it would be the laws of known matter or something similar and only if there basic foundations were in equilibrium with each other, nature refers to the natural world we exist in. They may also be totally contradictory to each other so in A when X happens it might be impossible in B therefore supernatural to the laws of nature in one universe. The same thing might even have the same outcome but be working on different code so the fundamental basics are in conflict with each other.
Wiki search
Quote
A physical law or scientific law is "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.
Laws of nature are distinct from religious and civil law, and should not be confused with the concept of natural law, which deduces rules of moral behavior. Nor should "physical law" be confused with "laws of physics" - the term "physical law" usually covers laws in other sciences (e.g. biology) as well[citation needed]. Some philosophers, e.g. Norman Swartz, use "physical law" to mean the laws of nature as they truly are and not as they are inferred by scientists.[2]
I haven't been able to find a definition of the laws of nature that limits its reach. A wiki search of "laws of nature" takes us to physical law. The bold statement is the only hint of a limitation to the laws of nature that I could find. It does not actually limit it to our environment though, it's just an observation of what we are doing.
This is just my understanding of it, but wouldn't the "laws of the universe" be different than the "laws of nature", if multiple universes were in existence?
[quote-en-route]There is no evidence of any description in favour of anything supernatural.But the person who asserts that it is simply not possible for a supernatural entity or entities to exist has to prove that assertion if he makes it the premise of his whole argument. There is a lack of evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, but there is no conclusive evidence against it either, in fact in my view there is no evidence against it.[/quote]
I agree with En-Route. Spot on. Wipes out #1 and #7 of Dawkins spectrum. Now reduced to #2 thru #6.
Yeah En-Route. Occam's razor rules.
Quote from: tank
From Spectrum of theistic probability
Quote
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Quote from: technolud on June 20, 2012, 01:35:09 AM
I agree with En-Route. Spot on. Wipes out #1 and #7 of Dawkins spectrum. Now reduced to #2 thru #6.
Yeah En-Route. Occam's razor rules.
I wouldn't say my theory predetermined a #7 on the Dawkins scale. As with any other theory, there should always be the subtext; "until proven otherwise". It's really up to the individual on how far to take any "truth".
Personally, for this matter I would be a #6. A claim that ghosts exist, I would be a #6. A clam that ghosts exist and also defy the laws of nature, I'd be a #6.9999999999... But still a #6. I could never be a #7. I'm not going to re-read this thread to see if I use "IMO" as much as I should have, but I do know I used it at least a few times. If I didn't use it enough, my apologies.
Speaking of Occam's razor, it would most certainly land in my favor on this one. What is the simplest explanation; the subject is defying the laws of nature, or we don't fully understand the laws of nature?
Quote from: Firebird on June 19, 2012, 10:28:23 PM
I understand why you have issues with this, but there's also been no compelling evidence that I'm aware of that anything can exist outside the laws of nature. Wouldn't the onus thus be on the person who claims it's possible to prove that? Yes, Genericguy is making an assertion, but there is evidence to support what he's saying. No object has ever been shown to defy the laws of gravity on earth without at least an equal and opposite force. No living creature has ever been known to come back to life after dying. There is no real documentation to prove some guy named Jesus walked across water. And so on and so forth. Maybe he didn't cite enough evidence in his statement (with all due respect) but the evidence is there. I fail to see any evidence to disprove that assertion.
Make nothing of this post here, I'm off work and just babbling to relax.
I agree with firebird, also about the evidence part at the end there. The evidence is nothing more than a few sentences, but it
is there and IMO (there, I said it :D) logically sound. I also agree with En_route and crow that it can never truly be proven. But what can? Can we really prove that
nothing can go faster than the speed of light? We could talk about hypothetical things on the other side of the universe that go faster than the speed of light, but we don't. We just say, "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" with the subtext of "until proven otherwise". I make no claim that my theory is as solid as the speed of light example, but I don't think it should be discarded just because we haven't tested everything in the cosmos, both hypothetical and real.
Oh, and confrontations between theists and atheists are futile... or something. ;D
Quote from: generic guySpeaking of Occam's razor, it would most certainly land in my favor on this one. What is the simplest explanation; the subject is defying the laws of nature, or we don't fully understand the laws of nature?
In this case Occams Razor would seem to point to the non-existance of the subject.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 20, 2012, 05:54:37 AM
I agree with firebird, also about the evidence part at the end there. The evidence is nothing more than a few sentences, but it is there and IMO (there, I said it :D) logically sound. I also agree with En_route and crow that it can never truly be proven. But what can? Can we really prove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? We could talk about hypothetical things on the other side of the universe that go faster than the speed of light, but we don't. We just say, "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" with the subtext of "until proven otherwise". I make no claim that my theory is as solid as the speed of light example, but I don't think it should be discarded just because we haven't tested everything in the cosmos, both hypothetical and real.
Oh, and confrontations between theists and atheists are futile... or something. ;D
Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.
What you have presented isn't even a hypothesis yet just an idea, whats your scope, how are you to prove you are correct when its not possible to do so with current technology (look at quantum mechanics). Take for example the point I made about our laws of nature could be totally in conflict with another universes laws of nature, maybe they have nothing to do with each other and are basically bubbles floating an a creators nest that have absolutely no relevance to each other but are visible from each, its these sort of hypothetical ideas you would need to close up or stitch together to even start becoming a theory so they can be disregarded as nonsense or work with them, then you have reproducibility and testability of evidence, what phenomena would this deal with, etc.
Currently it is the same as theology, in certain areas it makes sense but you have no evidence for such a proclamation and is just a belief from atheistic logic. That's cool with me but at least admit that is what it is, don't incorporate evidence which doesn't exist. I am atheist and so is En_Route (well I think he is) and I don't speak for him but my point is that it's not good enough yet, and to borrow from Nietzsche "if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you", which so far you have demonstrated.
Quote from: Crow on June 20, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 20, 2012, 05:54:37 AM
I agree with firebird, also about the evidence part at the end there. The evidence is nothing more than a few sentences, but it is there and IMO (there, I said it :D) logically sound. I also agree with En_route and crow that it can never truly be proven. But what can? Can we really prove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? We could talk about hypothetical things on the other side of the universe that go faster than the speed of light, but we don't. We just say, "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" with the subtext of "until proven otherwise". I make no claim that my theory is as solid as the speed of light example, but I don't think it should be discarded just because we haven't tested everything in the cosmos, both hypothetical and real.
Oh, and confrontations between theists and atheists are futile... or something. ;D
Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.
What you have presented isn't even a hypothesis yet just an idea, whats your scope, how are you to prove you are correct when its not possible to do so with current technology (look at quantum mechanics). Take for example the point I made about our laws of nature could be totally in conflict with another universes laws of nature, maybe they have nothing to do with each other and are basically bubbles floating an a creators nest that have absolutely no relevance to each other but are visible from each, its these sort of hypothetical ideas you would need to close up or stitch together to even start becoming a theory so they can be disregarded as nonsense or work with them, then you have reproducibility and testability of evidence, what phenomena would this deal with, etc.
Currently it is the same as theology, in certain areas it makes sense but you have no evidence for such a proclamation and is just a belief from atheistic logic. That's cool with me but at least admit that is what it is, don't incorporate evidence which doesn't exist. I am atheist and so is En_Route (well I think he is) and I don't speak for him but my point is that it's not good enough yet, and to borrow from Nietzsche "if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you", which so far you have demonstrated.
I agree fully with Crow (and of course, yes, I am a fully-paid up atheist). Really,what you are doing is taking the proposition that there is no evidence to support the existence of any kind of supernatural entity (which I imagine nobody here dissents from) and turning it on its head and saying "Because there is no evidence of any supernatural being, then everything must [/i]be in the realm of the natural".This is just a plain old non-sequitur and a basic logical fallacy. You are in effect using what has been called the "soft" atheist position and trying by sleight of hand to justify a "hard" atheist position. I do applaud you for taking ideas seriously and your not inconsiderable ingenuity (and indefatigability) in defending your theory. This has been a fun thread.
Quote from: Crow on June 20, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.
I think that was a little harsh, Crow. You make valid points, but I don't agree that the onus is on the person claiming that nothing can exist outside the laws of nature. My personal atheism, and I suspect that of many other people, is that nothing is "supernatural", because we've never seen any evidence of such a thing. We've seen all sorts of evidence to fit into our laws of nature and evidence that nothing's ever been able to violate those laws (when was the last time you saw a person fly without any opposing force, for example, or walk on water?). I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?
Quote from: Firebird on June 20, 2012, 05:55:35 PM
Quote from: Crow on June 20, 2012, 12:28:58 PM
Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.
I think that was a little harsh, Crow. You make valid points, but I don't agree that the onus is on the person claiming that nothing can exist outside the laws of nature. My personal atheism, and I suspect that of many other people, is that nothing is "supernatural", because we've never seen any evidence of such a thing. We've seen all sorts of evidence to fit into our laws of nature and evidence that nothing's ever been able to violate those laws (when was the last time you saw a person fly without any opposing force, for example, or walk on water?). I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?
His theory is based on the assumption that by definition there could not be a supernatural entity. There is nothing to disprove that assumption, but nothing to prove it either. The fact that we have not seen anything supernatural is good grounds for not choosing to believe in it but not good grounds for believing categorically that anything supernatural is impossible. It is a fundamental rule of logic that if you cannot prove the premises, then you cannot prove your conclusion.
I can live with what crow and en route say. I'm ok with it. You are correct firebird, I am not and never intended to sound presumptuous enough to think this would ever be considered a formal scientific theory. I put quotations around "theory" (in the begining at least, i got lazy) for that exact reason. I always meant it as literally a theory.
Quote from: Firebird on June 20, 2012, 05:55:35 PM
I think that was a little harsh, Crow.
I had a feeling it would come across that way but not meant in a nasty way. More tough love.
Quote from: Firebird on June 20, 2012, 05:55:35 PM
I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?
A hypothesis comes before a theory, a concept/thought before a hypothesis. Its a bit anal but an important point.
Because something has not been demonstrated as of yet doesn't therefore make something true, it is just a possibility in a myriad of imaginable ideas.
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
So how do you define "natural"? We are defining it as being part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
So how do you define "natural"? We are defining it as being part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
I agree to your definition of natural. So, let me ask this. If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live? How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists? I can conceive of a being that acts outside of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world. As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand.
I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists. You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
So how do you define "natural"? We are defining it as being part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
I agree to your definition of natural. So, let me ask this. If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live? How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists? I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world. As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand.
I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists. You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.
You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
So how do you define "natural"? We are defining it as being part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
I agree to your definition of natural. So, let me ask this. If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live? How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists? I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world. As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand.
I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists. You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.
You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.
First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing. What's that all about?
Second of all, I don't believe it's a failing of the imagination, but of logic. Logically, I don't see how something can exist outside of the physical world. Logically, where would it live, if not in the physical world? Quatum particles certainly behave in ways that seem counter-intuitive. That proves my point, not yours. They appear to break the rules that we usually assign to the physical world, and yet they are still of the physical world. They are not super-natural simply because they break the rules we think we understand.
(I revised my "theory" a bit. Still means the same thing, I just included one thing. I just modified my post on page 7, i think it was 7, as I didn't want to stir the pot again.)
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing. What's that all about?
Could be referring to a queef maybe? You know like I don't want to sound like an old fart, but I don't want to sound like vaginal flatulence. I dunno.
Quote from: Crow on June 20, 2012, 09:56:38 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing. What's that all about?
Could be referring to a queef maybe? You know like I don't want to sound like an old fart, but I don't want to sound like vaginal flatulence. I dunno.
Can somebody please add the words "vaginal flatulence" to En_Route's title? Pretty please? ;D ;D ;D
Sorry, only with his consent, and only in the "Personal Text" area which is available for him to edit at any time. I think that he showed poor judgment in his choice of a descriptive term, and I support your holding his feet to the fire, but personally I can't justify saddling him with an involuntary custom title he can't change. He looks silly enough with his foot in his mouth, anyway. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 07:19:48 PM
It seems like a lot of semantics to me. Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words. Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature. That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural. How could it exist and be outside of nature? What does that even mean?
So how do you define "natural"? We are defining it as being part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.
I agree to your definition of natural. So, let me ask this. If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live? How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists? I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world. As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand.
I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists. You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.
You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.
First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing. What's that all about?
Second of all, I don't believe it's a failing of the imagination, but of logic. Logically, I don't see how something can exist outside of the physical world. Logically, where would it live, if not in the physical world? Quatum particles certainly behave in ways that seem counter-intuitive. That proves my point, not yours. They appear to break the rules that we usually assign to the physical world, and yet they are still of the physical world. They are not super-natural simply because they break the rules we think we understand.
I don't think and never contended that quantum particles prove the point either way.I simply used them to illustrate that there are certain subjects even within the material universe that we can't fully grasp. It's a logical fallacy to argue that because
some things which we cannot grasp are part of the physical world, therefore
everything we cannot grasp must be part of the physical world. It is a live possibility that the solution as to the ultimate origins of the universe may simply be beyond our powers of comprehension. So we cannot rule out the possibility that the logic which prevails in relation to our physical world may not apply to some unspecified realm beyond it which might or might not contain some theistic entity. Of course we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis and the whole concept of god or gods looks suspiciously like wish-fulfillment on the part of mankind.
Quote from: Recusant on June 20, 2012, 11:29:40 PM
Sorry, only with his consent, and only in the "Personal Text" area which is available for him to edit at any time. I think that he showed poor judgment in his choice of a descriptive term, and I support your holding his feet to the fire, but personally I can't justify saddling him with an involuntary custom title he can't change. He looks silly enough with his foot in his mouth, anyway. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)
Hardly. It's a pretty obvious joke, I'd have thought.But anyway. I'll take it as read that you found it unfunny, offensive, and that you believe that the joke is on me.
Not to sound like a dick...I mean a penis....anyway...
I think we're closer in agreement than this debate appears to make it. We all seem to agree that it's
possible for something supernatural to exist, but that the evidence isn't there yet. I think we're getting too caught up in arguing about the degree of disbelief among us. Anyone else feel differently than I? Because if you disagree with me...fine! :)
Quote from: En_Route on June 20, 2012, 11:35:51 PM
It is a live possibility that the solution as to the ultimate origins of the universe may simply be beyond our powers of comprehension. So we cannot rule out the possibility that the logic which prevails in relation to our physical world may not apply to some unspecified realm beyond it which might or might not contain some theistic entity. Of course we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis and the whole concept of god or gods looks suspiciously like wish-fulfillment on the part of mankind.
Agree completely with this. This pretty much defines how I feel.
I wonder, how serious of a debate could we have if it was required to make reference to the vaginal "movement" at the end of each post?... Vaginal flatulence.
Quote from: Firebird on June 21, 2012, 04:02:04 AM
Not to sound like a dick...
I willingly acknowledge that there's a double standard when it comes to certain insulting epithets. It might make for an interesting discussion to examine the basis for that double standard, and whether it's justifiable. However, that should go in another thread, if anybody would like to pursue it.
Quote from: Recusant on June 21, 2012, 04:25:49 AM
Quote from: Firebird on June 21, 2012, 04:02:04 AM
Not to sound like a dick...
I willingly acknowledge that there's a double standard when it comes to certain insulting epithets. It might make for an interesting discussion to examine the basis for that double standard, and whether it's justifiable. However, that should go in another thread, if anybody would like to pursue it.
I think there's already been enough hoohah about this.
Quote from: Recusant on June 21, 2012, 04:25:49 AM
I willingly acknowledge that there's a double standard when it comes to certain insulting epithets. It might make for an interesting discussion to examine the basis for that double standard, and whether it's justifiable. However, that should go in another thread, if anybody would like to pursue it.
No need really I think Ali might have forgotten about this. Lisa Brown is a Baller - Reply #19 (http://lisa%20brown%20is%20a%20baller%20-%20reply%20#19). Tut tut tut.
hehehe...
hoohah.
I discuss this in my Philosophical Inquiry thread, albeit in more precise terms.