Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[Genericguy]

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.

[En_Route]

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.

[fester30]

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? 

[Tank]

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.

[Firebird]

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.

[Crow]

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.

[En_Route]

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.

[Genericguy]

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.

[Crow]

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.

[Genericguy]

Wiki search

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?

[technolud]

[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.

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."

[Genericguy]

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?

[Genericguy]

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   ) 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. 

[technolud]

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?

In this case Occams Razor would seem to point to the non-existance of the subject.

[Crow]

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   ) 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. 

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.