What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[ThatSoundAgain]

How is the bolded part true? Why would a theistic reality, by definition, be something we "cannot know anything about"? If reality is theistic, there is quite a bit we know about it. Divine revelation could reveal even more about reality.

The key words are in the bolded part of my quote about. Again, I'm talking about a theistic (or simulated, or dreamt etc) reality that is functionally identical to a materialistic one.

My point is merely that you can posit all sorts of metaphysical scenarios, but unless you can show that they somehow make a difference to the physics (inside physical reality), you're talking about something that is A) unknowable and B) meaningless.

Do you claim to know what happens when we die?

Probably not in the sense you mean - but the physical processes of death are quite well described.

Here's another case where the atheist viewpoint is assumed: it's assumed that when we die we cease to exist. Of course that's possible, but entirely unevidenced. If the converse is true, like would probably be the case in a theistic reality, then we stand to learn a great deal about reality after we die.

See, that's the thing - no assumptions, on my part at least. It is simply a meaningless question in the sense that we cannot know. Therefore, speculating about it is ultimately pointless. I would even add that we cannot know if there is anything to know at all.

So no, it's not true "by definition" that a theistic reality would be something we "cannot know anything about". In fact, a theistic universe benefits from the possibility of knowledge bypassing the senses in the form of direct knowledge from god.

See, we agree after all - you are talking about a theistic reality in which the god intervenes (by revalation). If that is the case, we of course can know about it.

That I remain unconvinced of a divine-intervention-style theistic reality has many reasons, the biggest point of disagreement between us probably being how much weight to put on anecdotal evidence.

In the atheistic universe, unfortunately, all we will ever have is sensory information. The latter is the best candidate for a model of reality we can never be certain of.

How do you know your god would tell you the truth, and how is that less uncertain?

To conclude: It's simple logic that if your metaphysical scenario has no impact on anything we can sense, then we cannot know about it. Again, functionally identical. That is not a semantic game; it's the whole point.

 

[Pup]

No phenomena will ever be fully explained because we can never know what phenomena actually are. Is seeing a result of photons striking our retina or a bit of code in a matrix or a part of an elaborate dream we're all sharing?

Again here, you assume a materialistic view of reality. What is this assumption based on? Evidence from your senses. What other evidence do you have? However, this sensory evidence is equally compatible with an infinite number of models of reality. To assume one model over another is simply a leap of faith.

It's possible that reality is an illusion, we're a brain in a vat, etc. I don't necessarily reject that possibility, but it seems pointless to explore, as it doesn't lead to any greater insight.

So far, it seems that a materialistic view, and exploring our world through the scientific method, gain us the most knowledge. If we're living in a matrix, for example, it seems to be a matrix created in such a way that it can be learned about through the scientific method. Thus, that seems the most logical thing to do.

 

[PixyMisa]

In the first part of my post, I was just trying to point out that the more they reduce the amount of detail they claim to know about their proposed god, the less vulnerable they are to using FSM as a way to ridicule them. They can claim it's a straw man attack, as they don't have as many absurd details as FSM or the traditional religions.

So we just propose the PAVHPB (Potentially Airborne Vague Handwavey Pasta Being).

All we have to do is remove specificity from the FSM to coincide with the proposed IDO (ill-defined deity-like object).

I agree completely that deists such as punschhh are constantly moving the goal posts. Their proposed god is always conveniently just beyond our visible horizon. He used to be in Heaven, just above the sky. Now he's before the big bang.

Yep. I call this the retreat to unfalsifiability.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Yep. I call this the retreat to unfalsifiability.

I call it shifting the goalpost off the playing field, where a person can pretend they won.

 

[punshhh]

Good point, and I'm a staunch materialist. I'd like to point out that I am standing on a leg though. Is it the material one or the other one?

One leg, presumably that leg is composed of atoms(subatomic particles), which are forms of energy.
Held in position by the forces acting between atoms.
These forces are exerted by energy.

Your leg is energies acting on energies.

What is energy?

 

[punshhh]

Except not. You honestly haven't paid any attention to anything anyone has said, ever, have you?

I understand well enough the physical processes of nature as described by science, I am not referring to these.

I am pointing out that no one knows what energy is, only how it behaves.

Matter is a form of energy.

Everything in our known universe is composed of energy and yet no one knows what energy is. Only how it appears to behave.

Where is this energy? does it have a physical presence?

 

[marplots]

One leg, presumably that leg is composed of atoms(subatomic particles), which are forms of energy.
Held in position by the forces acting between atoms.
These forces are exerted by energy.

Your leg is energies acting on energies.

What is energy?

If I understand what you posted, energy is that which my leg is composed of. Do I get a passing grade?

We shall have to do the other leg next.

 

[punshhh]

I've told you. The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. I myself am hoping that we can stave off the coming of the great white hanky* for as long as possible.

I think that perhaps a wishful person can arrive at the conclusion you describe. What you posit is an incredibly complex entity that you have absolutely no definition for other than 'created the universe'. You have no explaination for where it came from, what it's doing, why it's here or how it was created. The sum total of your theory is that out there somewhere is some thinking being that created the universe. Your evidence for this is, as far as I can understand it, that the universe exists and that the credulous get 'funny feelings'. Well, colour me grumpy if I don't get right on that train and agree that that's enough evidence to posit the existence of an almost impossibly complex entity, because it's not.

You miss understand my point here, let me put it again.

I posit the existence of an "intelligent creator".

My evidence is;

Intelligent creators have evolved naturally in existence.

My proof is;

Keyboards exist, which can only come into existence by being created by an intelligent creator, namely humanity.

Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

 

[punshhh]

If I understand what you posted, energy is that which my leg is composed of. Do I get a passing grade?

We shall have to do the other leg next.

What is this energy? Pixie dust?

 

[PixyMisa]

You miss understand my point here, let me put it again.

I posit the existence of an "intelligent creator".

My evidence is;

Intelligent creators have evolved naturally in existence.

My proof is;

Keyboards exist, which can only come into existence by being created by an intelligent creator, namely humanity.

Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

Do you really, honestly, not see the problem with proposing a creator of the Universe who evolved naturally?

 

[punshhh]

You are making a turtles all the way down argument here. How could a god "possibly have come into existence other than by being created by an intelligent entity?"

Science is also on the back of a turtle or hadn't you noticed.

Your definition of rational thinking is your problem here. You apparently don't know what it means.

My rational thinking only requires two ideas to be reasonable nothing more.

1, No one knows what existence really is, how it arose or what agencies were/are involved in its presence.

2, Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

Both these ideas can be proved, which is all I require to reasonably consider that intelligent creators may be involved in the creation of existence as we know it.

 

[PixyMisa]

What is this energy?

Wrong question.

 

[PixyMisa]

Science is also on the back of a turtle or hadn't you noticed.

Nope.

My rational thinking only requires two ideas to be reasonable nothing more.

Your quote-thinking-unquote is not rational.

1, No one knows what existence really is, how it arose or what agencies were involved in its presence.

Wrong question.

2, Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

Irrelevant.

Both these ideas can be proved, which is all I require to reasonably consider that intelligent creators may be involved in the creation of existence as we know it.

Non-sequitur.

 

[punshhh]

Do you really, honestly, not see the problem with proposing a creator of the Universe who evolved naturally?

I do, I will come onto that point later.

 

[PixyMisa]

I do, I will come onto that point later.

You don't have enough train wrecks in progress already?

 

[punshhh]

Nope.


Your quote-thinking-unquote is not rational.


Wrong question.


Irrelevant.


Non-sequitur.

I am only stating that it is not irrational to consider that intelligent creators might have been involved in the creation of existence.

Can you prove that they weren't?

 

[Pixel42]

Do you really, honestly, not see the problem with proposing a creator of the Universe who evolved naturally?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

 

[3point14]

You miss understand my point here, let me put it again.

I posit the existence of an "intelligent creator".

My evidence is;

Intelligent creators have evolved naturally in existence.

My proof is;

Keyboards exist, which can only come into existence by being created by an intelligent creator, namely humanity.

Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

You do know that that has been done to death, don't you?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

 

[3point14]

Science is also on the back of a turtle or hadn't you noticed.




My rational thinking only requires two ideas to be reasonable nothing more.

1, No one knows what existence really is, how it arose or what agencies were/are involved in its presence.

2, Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.

Both these ideas can be proved, which is all I require to reasonably consider that intelligent creators may be involved in the creation of existence as we know it.

You see the problem?

 

[3point14]

I am only stating that it is not irrational to consider that intelligent creators might have been involved in the creation of existence.

Can you prove that they weren't?

No, and no-one is required to. You can tack 'Can you disprove it?' on the end of any suitably designed ridiculous statement.

See Russel's Teapot