Doubting your disbelief?

[Gertrude]

Creator of the Universe. Out of "what"? I don't know. Use your imagination. We're talking about a being who makes the laws of the universe, Why does such a being need to be limited by such laws as conservation of mass?

I'm not talking about physics laws such as conservation of mass. I'm refering to this 'nothingness' that I can't quite put my finger on. "Use your imagination" is far from convincing. What you are using is your everyday life intuition and concepts. And this is generalised to a place where I am not sure (actually, I am quite certain) it cannot be generalised.

Well that's the definition I'm using for this discussion. It's consistent.

See my last post.

Why do you deny the 'question' of a creator?

Because the question of creation is a human fallacy of the mind. See my other arguments.

So pragmatism?

No. I don't consider science to be true, for instance. I consider it to be very practical and useful. But there is pretty much nothing that I truly claim to be true.

I'm not looking for a reason to believe. I'm simply asking you, Is there another reason to believe aside from empirical evidence itself? Perhaps pragmatism?

As I said, I don't believe in many things. Precisely because that would require believing in my own rationality and senses. And what empirical evidence do I have for that? Again a case of turtles all the way down.

 

[nescafe]

I never said it makes it "Magical". However I would assume that no one on this forum or even in this world could understand the technology behind something like a Wormhole or reanimating the dead.

In that you are both wrong (there are several well-known mechanisms that can cause a wormhole -- all we need is some negative mass and/or negative energy, and we reanimate the dead* all the time), and misunderstand both Clarke's third law and human ingenuity.

* if by "dead" you mean "no heartbeat". Soon we will even be able to handle the "no brain activity" case with a fair degree of reliability.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Because if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe in his existence.

No reason to believe in existence isn't the same as there being no existence. Your assertion was that there would be evidence if a God existed. This is not necessarily true.

I didn't say impossible, did I? I said "hightly statistically unlikely". Don't put words in my mouth.

Why is it even that?

In that case, it is not a scientific principle.

Indeed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is nothing more than tautology.

Wrong.

What evidence would you accept that the universe was "created" or that there is a "ruler of the universe"?

A logo, something like "universe by god" floating out in space would be evidence of creation. Also, wouldn't a ruler actually enforce some set of rules? I see no supernatural being enforcing it's rule and I don't see any evidence of creation of the universe.

Now, why is it that you've shifted the burden of evidence to people who don't believe in your god? Why don't you, instead, just give us your "logical" arguments and evidence that your god exists?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Define "being". (The laws of physics in themselves could otherwise satisfy your definition, in which case I don't have to be convinced.)Define "originator". (Did god create something out of nothing. If so, 'nothing' is also not a valid concept. If not, then there was already something. This whole 'originator' idea is imho leading nowhere) Define "ruler". (again: laws of physics)

Being-conscious existence.

Originator-to give rise to.

Rule-the exercise of authority or control.

Did God make something out of nothing? I don't know. Maybe there was already something in existence that God made something out of. Maybe God "willed" it into existence. If we're talking about the one who makes the laws of the universe, the laws of conservation of mass can't apply to such an entity.

 

[Taffer]

No reason to believe in existence isn't the same as there being no existence. Your assertion was that there would be evidence if a God existed. This is not necessarily true.

If God exists but there is no evidence for his existence, and all phenomena can be explained through naturalistic theories, what reason is there to believe in him?

Why is it even that?

A lack of evidence, Dustin.

Indeed.

What is your point?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There are plenty of instances in holy books where godlike figures use magic or rely upon magic. Universally, every one is mythical and has no basis in reality.

Maybe he performed miracles then and stopped? Maybe those specific religious books are wrong.

Time is completely stopped in the local vicinity.

I see no reason why super advanced technology can't accomplish this.

A Gate is not a wormhole. The spell "Teleport" might be covered by a wormhole, but a Gate opens a portal to where demons or elementals or angels live. I'd like to see any form of technology duplicate that!

Maybe Demons and Angels don't exist and therefore no gate can be opened to them.

No, Dustin. The spell "Resurrection" means I can take a human skull, bare of flesh and empty, over 200 years old, and bring that person completely back to life, with all their memories and personality intact. No technology could do that. Sufficiently advanced technology could create a simulacrum or copy, but it couldn't resurrect someone.

We really can't predict what technology several thousand years in the future can or can't do. It's highly naive to believe so.

Again, Dustin, no. You are being deliberately obtuse, and are deliberately misunderstanding me. No technology, no matter how advanced, can duplicate the examples of magic I have given.

I'm sure a man living 1,000 years ago would say that no technology no matter how advanced could transport a human thousands of miles per hour. Stating that "No technology, no matter how advanced.." can duplicate what you mentioned is highly naive and very presumptuous.

Moreover, Let's assume technology CAN'T do it. So what? Maybe some magical wizard can who isn't necessarily "God". This would mean that such magic would not be proof of a God.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

In that you are both wrong (there are several well-known mechanisms that can cause a wormhole -- all we need is some negative mass and/or negative energy, and we reanimate the dead* all the time), and misunderstand both Clarke's third law and human ingenuity.

* if by "dead" you mean "no heartbeat". Soon we will even be able to handle the "no brain activity" case with a fair degree of reliability.

By "dead" I mean a skull, with no flesh or organs (i.e./ no brain at all). Say over 200 years old. Bring that back to life, complete, with the person having all their memories and their personality fully restored.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Without knowing what these arguments are, we can't decide or discuss their factual basis.

Cheers,
TGHO

Premise 1-All 'A's' are 'B's'.

Premise 2-I am holding a 'B'.

Conclusion- I am holding an 'A'.

----------

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Conclusion- I am petting a mammal. (Fact)


Logically valid inductive argument. Proof I am petting a mammal.

 

[nescafe]

Correct me if I am wrong, Dustin, but you seem to be arguing that since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god must have done a stupendous job of hiding the evidence. If that is the case, why must you discard the null hypothesis (no evidence of god -> no god) in this case?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm not talking about physics laws such as conservation of mass. I'm refering to this 'nothingness' that I can't quite put my finger on. "Use your imagination" is far from convincing. What you are using is your everyday life intuition and concepts. And this is generalised to a place where I am not sure (actually, I am quite certain) it cannot be generalised.

If God made the laws of conservation of mass then he can break them. Conservation of mass says that in a closed system the amount of mass will remain the same. This means that we can't create mass from nothing. I see no reason why God can't break such a rule.

No. I don't consider science to be true, for instance. I consider it to be very practical and useful. But there is pretty much nothing that I truly claim to be true.

So science can't produce facts?

There is pretty much nothing that you truly claim to be true? How about your own existence.

As I said, I don't believe in many things. Precisely because that would require believing in my own rationality and senses. And what empirical evidence do I have for that? Again a case of turtles all the way down.

You lack belief in a God because your sense and rationality is flawed? How can you be sure your lacking belief is justified?

 

[Taffer]

Premise 1-All 'A's' are 'B's'.

Premise 2-I am holding a 'B'.

Conclusion- I am holding an 'A'.

----------

That is not logically valid, Dustin. You are making the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent^WP.

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Conclusion- I am petting a mammal. (Fact)


Logically valid inductive argument. Proof I am petting a mammal.

This is valid, though.

ETA: Oh, and this is Deductive, not Inductive.

 

[andyandy]

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Conclusion- I am petting a mammal. (Fact)


Logically valid inductive argument. Proof I am petting a mammal.

...where does God fit into that?

Oh, I see.....

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Premise 3 - Dog spelt backwards is God (Fact)

Conclusion 1 - I am touching up God.

Conclusion 2 - God has nice melons.

 

[nescafe]

By "dead" I mean a skull, with no flesh or organs (i.e./ no brain at all). Say over 200 years old. Bring that back to life, complete, with the person having all their memories and their personality fully restored.

Cheers,
TGHO

Sorry, my cleric has not hit that level yet. Come back a few gaming sessions later.

That, and I am no Frank Tipler.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In that you are both wrong (there are several well-known mechanisms that can cause a wormhole -- all we need is some negative mass and/or negative energy, and we reanimate the dead* all the time), and misunderstand both Clarke's third law and human ingenuity.

* if by "dead" you mean "no heartbeat". Soon we will even be able to handle the "no brain activity" case with a fair degree of reliability.

I said "understands the technology behind something like a Wormhole". Can you make a machine that can create a wormhole which transports matter? No? Then you don't understand the technology behind such a machine.

Wrong.

Sure it is. Saying that the evidence you would require for a "God" is evidence that the universe was created and evidence that there is a ruler of the universe is the same thing.

A logo, something like "universe by god" floating out in space would be evidence of creation. Also, wouldn't a ruler actually enforce some set of rules? I see no supernatural being enforcing it's rule and I don't see any evidence of creation of the universe.

Firstly, A logo? Is that a joke? Not even all human produced items have logo's.

Secondly, Why must God actively control the universe constantly? Maybe he "rules" it as in makes sure the natural laws stay constant.

Now, why is it that you've shifted the burden of evidence to people who don't believe in your god? Why don't you, instead, just give us your "logical" arguments and evidence that your god exists?

That's not the point of this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It appears to me that Dustin is trying to convince us that not believing his god exists is illogical because.. well, because he said so.

 

[The Atheist]

You are being deliberately obtuse, and are deliberately misunderstanding me.

TGHO

Hairy, I think you and Taffer are making the same mistake I made with Dustin - thinking he has the capacity to actually understand how dumb his reasoning is.

He hasn't.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If God exists but there is no evidence for his existence, and all phenomena can be explained through naturalistic theories, what reason is there to believe in him?

Can "all phenomena" be explained through naturalistic theories?

And again, Your assertion was that there would be evidence if a God existed. Then tried to support it by saying that there is no reason to believe in it's existence however no reason to believe in existence isn't the same as there being no existence.

A lack of evidence, Dustin.

Lack of evidence according to whom? You? Modern science? There was a "lack of evidence" to support the idea that atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons 3,000 years ago from the perspective of what was considered modern science. A lack of evidence doesn't make something "highly statistically unlikely"

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That is not logically valid, Dustin. You are making the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent^WP.

Sorry. Let me rephrase it.

All 'A's' are 'B's' and all 'B's' are 'A's'

I am holding a 'B'.

Therefore I am holding an 'A'.

This is valid, though.

ETA: Oh, and this is Deductive, not Inductive.

You're right about that.

Correct me if I am wrong, Dustin, but you seem to be arguing that since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god must have done a stupendous job of hiding the evidence. If that is the case, why must you discard the null hypothesis (no evidence of god -> no god) in this case?

No. That's not my argument at all. I'm not making an argument for the existence of a God right now.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yep, a classic appeal to ignorance is being applied by Dustin now. Why am I not surprised?