What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[PixyMisa]

You and Pixy are misrepresenting my position, I do not follow the usual theistic line of reasoning on this issue.

No we're not because yes you do.

I don't seek to draw this to far towards philosophy in the Science forum, as I've been told off before for that. I will merely point out that whatever reasoning you choose to put regarding this issue you can only end up with a don't know.

Where you invent magical fairies. Don't know is at least honest.

All science and human knowledge does little more than describe the behavior of atoms. When it comes to what those atoms are and how these atoms came into existence you come face to face with the unknown.

We know perfectly well what atoms are. That's precisely what the description of their behaviour tells us.

From that position on balance I lean towards the creator God explanation.

You invent magical fairies. This is neither rational nor an explanation.

 

[punshhh]

No we're not because yes you do.

I have not put forward my reasoning on this issue on this forum

Where you invent magical fairies. Don't know is at least honest.

So you don't know

We know perfectly well what atoms are. That's precisely what the description of their behaviour tells us.

We've been over this before, do you remember the question about what energy is?

You invent magical fairies. This is neither rational nor an explanation.

Please provide a rational explanation of what atoms are and how they came to exist?

 

[Pup]

So you don't know

You say that like it's a bad thing, and it's better to make up untestable explanations. I disagree. I'd rather hear an honest we don't know yet but we're working on it, than listen to people desperately grope for made-up solutions that can't be falsified. Why is we don't know the wrong answer? Is the unknown really that scary?

 

[3point14]

You and Pixy are misrepresenting my position, I do not follow the usual theistic line of reasoning on this issue.

I don't seek to draw this to far towards philosophy in the Science forum, as I've been told off before for that. I will merely point out that whatever reasoning you choose to put regarding this issue you can only end up with a don't know.
All science and human knowledge does little more than describe the behavior of atoms. When it comes to what those atoms are and how these atoms came into existence you come face to face with the unknown.

From that position on balance I lean towards the creator God explanation. What is your leaning?

Rather than randomly positing theories based on absolutely nothing, I'm sticking with 'I don't know'.

If I was forced to come up with an answer, I would say that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.

With no evidence and no reasoning, it's as valid as anything else. I much prefer 'I don't know'

 

[Pixel42]

I am a truly rational person and I regard the existence of Creator Gods as the only rational explanation of existence. As all the other explanations I have come across over the years don't actually explain it. essentially they are don't knows.

OK, the existence of a creator god explains the existence of the universe.

Now explain the existence of a creator god.

Your "rational explanation" actually explains nothing. All you've done is replace one difficult question with a different, even more difficult, one. The universe is at least something we can study, and whose existence we can therefore hold out some hope of eventually explaining. The same cannot be said of a hypothetical creator god.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have not put forward my reasoning on this issue on this forum

If your actual reasoning differs from the nonsense you have posted, then.... Why?

So you don't know

Don't know what?

We've been over this before, do you remember the question about what energy is?

Yes. You were entirely unable - or merely unwilling - to grasp the concept.

Please provide a rational explanation of what atoms are and how they came to exist?

Atoms are what they do. They came to exist as the Universe cooled down after the Big Bang.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. You were entirely unable - or merely unwilling - to grasp the concept.

I understood what was said, I was not given an explanation as to what energy is. I am happy to agree that we don't know what it is, or would you prefer to explain what energy is?

Atoms are what they do. They came to exist as the Universe cooled down after the Big Bang.

Yes I understand how atoms were formed and agree that science has a good understanding of the behavior of atoms and that they are constituted of energy.
Where did they come from? I am happy to agree that we don't know.

 

[punshhh]

Rather than randomly positing theories based on absolutely nothing, I'm sticking with 'I don't know'.

If I was forced to come up with an answer, I would say that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.

With no evidence and no reasoning, it's as valid as anything else. I much prefer 'I don't know'

If one is discussing spaghetti monsters(Gods), the most rational position is that they are likely incomprehensible to the likes of us.

Some don't knows are more "we really don't know" than others.

Some don't knows actually mean that what we don't know must of course be explainable through a scientific logical process, its just that we haven't quite got there yet.

 

[punshhh]

OK, the existence of a creator god explains the existence of the universe.

Now explain the existence of a creator god.

Your "rational explanation" actually explains nothing. All you've done is replace one difficult question with a different, even more difficult, one. The universe is at least something we can study, and whose existence we can therefore hold out some hope of eventually explaining. The same cannot be said of a hypothetical creator god.

So we all don't know then.

 

[punshhh]

You say that like it's a bad thing, and it's better to make up untestable explanations. I disagree. I'd rather hear an honest we don't know yet but we're working on it, than listen to people desperately grope for made-up solutions that can't be falsified. Why is we don't know the wrong answer? Is the unknown really that scary?

I don't mean to say its scary, I'm pointing out that there is a big don't know out there, that is all.

 

[ehcks]

So we all don't know then.

Right. We don't know, and we know that we don't know.

This is normal. This is to be expected. It's not something to be afraid of, and it's actually dangerous to try to fill in nonsensical impossibilities to those places we don't yet understand.

 

[SomeGuy]

I have decided that I from henceforth will declare myself as being an asmurfist.

Since obviously, unless you believe in a fictional creature, you are required to identify yourself as someone who rejects a fictional creature. (after all, we're constantly reminded we're atheists)

Since science has not proven (nor could it, I propose) the non-existence of smurfs, the leap of faith required to reject the existence of smurfs is logically equal to the leap of faith required to reject the existence of god.

Since there's from a purely logical point of view no difference in rejecting smurfs over god, I also see no real reason to prefer the rejection of the existence of god over the rejection of the existence of smurfs as a way to identify myself.

I'm fully aware that so far there's been a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of smurf. When it comes down to it, many of us have a a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate. I, myself have had trouble, committing for fear of being trapped in a postion that I cannot defend. (I've been scared in the past of being exposed a fool, when someone actually would find a smurf)

But enough of that, I'll come out and say it: I'm a strong asmurfist, I really believe smurfs don't exists. I am fully aware however that that is just a belief, and it's in every sense completely equal to believing in the christian god and following a specific set of rules made up by guys in dresses.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have decided that I from henceforth will declare myself as being an asmurfist.

Since obviously, unless you believe in a fictional creature, you are required to identify yourself as someone who rejects a fictional creature. (after all, we're constantly reminded we're atheists)

Since science has not proven (nor could it, I propose) the non-existence of smurfs, the leap of faith required to reject the existence of smurfs is logically equal to the leap of faith required to reject the existence of god.

Since there's from a purely logical point of view no difference in rejecting smurfs over god, I also see no real reason to prefer the rejection of the existence of god over the rejection of the existence of smurfs as a way to identify myself.

I'm fully aware that so far there's been a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of smurf. When it comes down to it, many of us have a a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate. I, myself have had trouble, committing for fear of being trapped in a postion that I cannot defend. (I've been scared in the past of being exposed a fool, when someone actually would find a smurf)

But enough of that, I'll come out and say it: I'm a strong asmurfist, I really believe smurfs don't exists. I am fully aware however that that is just a belief, and it's in every senses made up by guys in dresses.

Wait. Smurfs are not real?

Oh. Noes.

 

[3point14]

If one is discussing spaghetti monsters(Gods), the most rational position is that they are likely incomprehensible to the likes of us.

You've begged the question of the existence of a terribly improbable creature there. I don't think the argument holds.

I have decided that I from henceforth will declare myself as being an asmurfist.

Since obviously, unless you believe in a fictional creature, you are required to identify yourself as someone who rejects a fictional creature. (after all, we're constantly reminded we're atheists)

Since science has not proven (nor could it, I propose) the non-existence of smurfs, the leap of faith required to reject the existence of smurfs is logically equal to the leap of faith required to reject the existence of god.

Since there's from a purely logical point of view no difference in rejecting smurfs over god, I also see no real reason to prefer the rejection of the existence of god over the rejection of the existence of smurfs as a way to identify myself.

I'm fully aware that so far there's been a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of smurf. When it comes down to it, many of us have a a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate. I, myself have had trouble, committing for fear of being trapped in a postion that I cannot defend. (I've been scared in the past of being exposed a fool, when someone actually would find a smurf)

But enough of that, I'll come out and say it: I'm a strong asmurfist, I really believe smurfs don't exists. I am fully aware however that that is just a belief, and it's in every sense completely equal to believing in the christian god and following a specific set of rules made up by guys in dresses.

Oh, bravo. Is your cult of asmurfism open to allcomers?

 

[PixyMisa]

I understood what was said, I was not given an explanation as to what energy is.

Wrong, both times.

Yes I understand how atoms were formed and agree that science has a good understanding of the behavior of atoms and that they are constituted of energy.

Wrong.

Where did they come from? I am happy to agree that we don't know.

I just told you that.

 

[PixyMisa]

If one is discussing spaghetti monsters(Gods), the most rational position is that they are likely incomprehensible to the likes of us.

Wrong.

I don't mean to say its scary, I'm pointing out that there is a big don't know out there, that is all.

But you are the only one irrationally inventing magic fairies.

 

[punshhh]

You've begged the question of the existence of a terribly improbable creature there. I don't think the argument holds.

I haven't defined this creature, its improbability can not been addressed without a description of its attributes. I am refering to the possibility that they might be present.

If we don't know what is present beyond our current understanding, it is foolish to deny the presence of anything beyond our current understanding.

 

[punshhh]

I have decided that I from henceforth will declare myself as being an asmurfist.

Since obviously, unless you believe in a fictional creature, you are required to identify yourself as someone who rejects a fictional creature. (after all, we're constantly reminded we're atheists)

Since science has not proven (nor could it, I propose) the non-existence of smurfs, the leap of faith required to reject the existence of smurfs is logically equal to the leap of faith required to reject the existence of god.

Since there's from a purely logical point of view no difference in rejecting smurfs over god, I also see no real reason to prefer the rejection of the existence of god over the rejection of the existence of smurfs as a way to identify myself.

I'm fully aware that so far there's been a pretty high level of intellectual dishonesty in our discussions of smurf. When it comes down to it, many of us have a a position that lacks the equivocation and bet-hedging that we present in a debate. I, myself have had trouble, committing for fear of being trapped in a postion that I cannot defend. (I've been scared in the past of being exposed a fool, when someone actually would find a smurf)

But enough of that, I'll come out and say it: I'm a strong asmurfist, I really believe smurfs don't exists. I am fully aware however that that is just a belief, and it's in every sense completely equal to believing in the christian god and following a specific set of rules made up by guys in dresses.

If smurfs had the quality of being able to create physical universes, I would take them quite seriously.

 

[punshhh]

Right. We don't know, and we know that we don't know.

This is normal. This is to be expected. It's not something to be afraid of, and it's actually dangerous to try to fill in nonsensical impossibilities to those places we don't yet understand.

We don't know the extent of what we don't know.

I am not afraid of not knowing, I'm quite happy to muddle along with what I do know and make the best of it.

 

[punshhh]

Wrong, both times.

What is energy?

Please don't refer me to scientific texts, I read them last time and they didn't answer the question. Just answer it yourself please?

Wrong.

Of what are atoms constituted?

I just told you that.

No you told me the process by which they formed, I already know that from scientific papers.

From what did they form?