Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Tricky said:
Actually, everybody is a liar. I challenge any person here to claim that they have never lied. So being a liar is a given, it is simply a matter of degree. I will say in your defense though, that being delusional is not the same thing as being a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't lie. Period.
 
Belz... said:
Why don't you answer Tricky's question instead:

"For that, you have evidence, as do we. It is not 100% certain, but since we know how the forum works, it pretty strong evidence. Now, the part where you are "certain there was something before the big bang". Can you give us some strong evidence for that? How about weak evidence? How about any evidence?

How do you decide whether or not you are "certain" about a thing, if not by evidence?"
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the Universe in which we live is a fluke? If so, then how is it possible to know (and be reasonably certain) of anything? This is only one step away, believe it or not, of accepting what I've come to accept ... albeit there are a whole myriad of things which have happened to me on a personal level, that have helped to confirm it.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Yes, agreed. The default position states that I'm a liar.
Click to expand...
No. The default position is that you are incoherent. On those rare occasions when a testable statement comes from you, then the default position is that you are quite simply wrong. Whether this is the result of ignorance or active lying is a choice, not a default position.

Which would you prefer I believe, that you are ignorant, or that you are a liar? It really doesn't matter to me, so whichever you prefer I will accept.
 
Iacchus said:
Do you believe that the Universe in which we live is a fluke? If so, then how is it possible to know (and be reasonably certain) of anything? This is only one step away, believe it or not, of accepting what I've come to accept ... albeit there are a whole myriad of things which have happened to me on a personal level, that have helped to confirm it.
Click to expand...

Observation, testing, independent reproduction of results. You know, the whole "scientific method" bit?
 
wastepanel said:
If there is no evidence to the contrary or to prove existence, I keep my mind open. I'm not going to throw all my marbles into one basket, only to have that basket's bottom fall through.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I try to keep my mind open too, but I don't put any marbles into baskets if that basket doesn't also contain some evidence. There are simply too many baskets, and I don't have enough marbles for all of them.

wastepanel said:
In regards as to why I believe, it is because I choose to. I've been trolling and posting here for about 7 months. I've met a lot of people that hold no regard for unproven beliefs. To me, this is taking a big step out of rational thought. If I think something, does it make it wrong if nobody concurs?
Click to expand...
Ah. Because you choose to. That is honest. What factors enter into your choice when there is no evidence? Surely there must be some reason you choose to believe in a creator of the universe. I can think of many. Comfort. A feeling of "it must be so". A need for a meaning to the universe.

But if you look carefully here, you will see that it is not unproven beliefs we have little regard for, but beliefs with no evidence at all. Heck, nothing is proven 100% (as we've pointed out to Iacchus numerous times.)

wastepanel said:
EDIT: I'm not saying that I believe what I think. I'm saying that, faced with no evidence supporting either theory, it's a crapshoot. Hopefully, one day this will be settled.
Click to expand...
LOL. I dunno. It depends on HOW it is settled. Suppose some really awful entity that hates humans is responsible for the creation of the universe? But honestly, I don't think it will ever be settled. No matter how much we learn about the natural world, people will still be able to say, "you can't prove there is no God. You cannot prove a negative. Try it and you'll see.

wastepanel said:
Until that day though, my beliefs are valid until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" here. Are they likely? How can you say without evidence?

What would it take to convince you that there is no creator of the universe? If there is nothing that could convince you, then I wouldn't call your belief "valid", because you would be incapable of believing anything else.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Originally Posted by Tricky :
Actually, everybody is a liar. I challenge any person here to claim that they have never lied. So being a liar is a given, it is simply a matter of degree. I will say in your defense though, that being delusional is not the same thing as being a liar.
Click to expand...
I don't lie. Period.
Click to expand...

That is a lie. Period.
 
Belz... said:
I don't lie. Period.
Click to expand...
Sure you do. Everybody does to some extent. Sometimes its even the right thing to do ("Honey, does my ass look too big?"). I have never known a person who has not told a single lie in their life. I would be very surprised to find you were the first.

No offense, I just get annoyed at all this "liar liar pants on fire" stuff. Most lies we tell are not big deals.
 
wastepanel said:
Sorry, missed that post.

If there is no evidence to the contrary or to prove existance, I keep my mind open. I'm not going to throw all my marbles into one basket, only to have that basket's bottom fall through.
Click to expand...

But then why believe something for which there is no evidence for the existance of? There is no evidence for the existance of an invisible, transdimentional Croatian family living in my left nostril. But then there is no evidence against there being an invisible, transdimensional Croatian family living in my left nostril. Why is it more "rational" for me to believe in god and not an invisible, transdimentional Croatian family? Does it have to do with the number of people who believe, or personal emotional reasons?
If what 's good for the goose is good for the gander, why do you believe in one thing and not the other?

I personaly tend to choose not to believe in a god until I see or experiance something to give me reason to believe. Than means something that cannot have any other explination other than being evidence FOR the existance of a god. (Having said that, I am open to the possibility, however scant the probability, that there may be a god of somesort. But again, I gotta "see" the proof.) The reasoning behind this is if something exists, evidence for it's exstance will also exist. The caveat, of course, is that the evidence has to be observable or discoverable. If you not looking in the right place or at the right time or without the proper technology or without the presence of mind to recognize, you might miss it. I feel that something as big and important as god should have something there to show for it. As time passes by without any irrefutable evidence coming up kind of diminishes the probability in my opinion.
 
Tricky said:
Fair enough. I try to keep my mind open too, but I don't put any marbles into baskets if that basket doesn't also contain some evidence. There are simply too many baskets, and I don't have enough marbles for all of them.


Ah. Because you choose to. That is honest. What factors enter into your choice when there is no evidence? Surely there must be some reason you choose to believe in a creator of the universe. I can think of many. Comfort. A feeling of "it must be so". A need for a meaning to the universe.

But if you look carefully here, you will see that it is not unproven beliefs we have little regard for, but beliefs with no evidence at all. Heck, nothing is proven 100% (as we've pointed out to Iacchus numerous times.)


LOL. I dunno. It depends on HOW it is settled. Suppose some really awful entity that hates humans is responsible for the creation of the universe? But honestly, I don't think it will ever be settled. No matter how much we learn about the natural world, people will still be able to say, "you can't prove there is no God. You cannot prove a negative. Try it and you'll see.


Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" here. Are they likely? How can you say without evidence?

What would it take to convince you that there is no creator of the universe? If there is nothing that could convince you, then I wouldn't call your belief "valid", because you would be incapable of believing anything else.
Click to expand...

You've managed to disect my statements very nicely. When I said "valid", I meant that there is no evidence contradicting. And, since it is a personal belief, I have obviously let my mind wander to the "Yeah, one might exist" mindset. So valid in my mind may not be valid in yours. In fact, somebody sharing the opposite train of thought could use that same argument and I could not disprove that person. I accept that.

I believe what it would take to disprove to me that there was/is no creator is, basically, a timeline of the universe. We have that now, but it is not even close to being accurate. For example, if we choose the Big Bang as time equalling -0-, I would want to see what happened before that (blah, blah, blah...time and physics didn't exist). My problem is that both the theological and the scientific theories both assume "First there was...". Theologians say there was a creator. Scientists say there was mass. I'm more interested in seeing what was there, and how it was created.

I find that the scientific argument that the mass was just there to be counterproductive to the argument. I find that if you just stop at this point and accept this, you are doing an injustice to science. As a skeptic, the first question should be "So it was just there? Where did it come from? What created it? Is it from a bigger mass?". Yes, it is the only thing that can be proven at time equals -0-, but who am I, you, anybody else to laugh at another's theory on that mass? If nobody knows, what's the point in arguing it?

I am not interested in the argument that physics could be different, time didn't exist, etc. in this discussion either. Worst case scenerio is we find a new, exciting version of physics. The odd thing I find about this argument is that it is SPECULATION that physics could have acted differently before the Big Bang.

I hope I've answered your questions Tricky.
 
uruk said:
But then why believe something for which there is no evidence for the existance of? There is no evidence for the existance of an invisible, transdimentional Croatian family living in my left nostril. But then there is no evidence against there being an invisible, transdimensional Croatian family living in my left nostril. Why is it more "rational" for me to believe in god and not an invisible, transdimentional Croatian family? Does it have to do with the number of people who believe, or personal emotional reasons?
If what 's good for the goose is good for the gander, why do you believe in one thing and not the other?

I personaly tend to choose not to believe in a god until I see or experiance something to give me reason to believe. Than means something that cannot have any other explination other than being evidence FOR the existance of a god. (Having said that, I am open to the possibility, however scant the probability, that there may be a god of somesort. But again, I gotta "see" the proof.) The reasoning behind this is if something exists, evidence for it's exstance will also exist. The caveat, of course, is that the evidence has to be observable or discoverable. If you not looking in the right place or at the right time or without the proper technology or without the presence of mind to recognize, you might miss it. I feel that something as big and important as god should have something there to show for it. As time passes by without any irrefutable evidence coming up kind of diminishes the probability in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's a good rational post.
 
wastepanel said:
Huh?

I watch and I listen. I have never, ever seen evidence that a creator does or does not exist. It's my pure speculation. And, unless this whole mess is explained one day, you, me, andybody else has no idea either.
Click to expand...

That's not completely accurate.

There are indications that there is no designer or creator involved because of how things work or are arranged. An intelligent beign, any beign, who creates something is, more than likely, NOT going to create a universe whose physical laws are indistinguishable from those of a universe born from random processes.
 
uruk said:
I personaly tend to choose not to believe in a god until I see or experiance something to give me reason to believe.
Click to expand...
Whoa dude! So, if anybody else comes along and claims to have had such an experience, does this make them ready for the loony bin? Or, at the very least a liar?
 
Iacchus said:
And you are sadly mistaken if you think I'm incapable of learning. As I said, it all begins with the awareness of self. There is no knowledge without the observer (hence the awareness of self) to observe it.
Click to expand...

The fact that you still believe that SHOWS that you haven't learned, Iacchus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom