Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[punshhh]

So you were not prescribing it to 'god' creates 'god' creates 'god' ad infinitum?

Not specifically, although this scenario may fit. I was pointing in the direction of eternity, this describes an unknown reality which is in a sense infinite, but could also be outside time and space, or transcendent, with the effect or appearance of being infinite.

In this area of discussion infinity is a clumsy concept, rather like turtles all the way down.

 

[Tassman]

You have made the assertion that god is a 'he'.

Convention!

I have said that I don't know if god does or does not exist and that I don't know any particular way to describe what god is other than superficially and metaphorically at best and that is the extent of any assertion re 'god'.

Because I see it might be possible (are you asserting that it is not possible?) this is not an assertion. I could as easily agree that it might not be possible.

But why raise the possibility at all? It also might be possible that the Celestial Teapot exists. But the whole point of Bertrand Russell’s analogy was to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove the claims of supernaturalists. By using an intentionally absurd analogy, Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works. The burden of proof rests with you to show why you think it possible that god exists given that you consider it important enough to mention it in the first place.

 

[Tassman]

Well now you are defining god as supernatural?
Fair enough. The idea of super-intelligent cyborgs creating the universe is interesting and could therefore be just another definition of what god is.

No! By definition gods are supernatural. The notion of supernatural gods has nothing to do with cyborgs which, although (hypothetically) highly advanced, are nevertheless natural entities.

Something like a looped program which creates fractal like patterns?
I am a layman but the matter I understand as being products of the Big Bang and the energy is what the big bang was and what the reaction to the big bang is.

The only evidence we have is that our universe originated from a form of preexisting energy and matter, probably eternal, known as the zero-state field. This quantum vacuum is observable and has properties, such as random fluctuations from which the universe as we know it emerged. Multiverse theory posits that there are an infinite number of such universes in the greater cosmos

Well your definition of god is an assertion. I can understand that some god ideas are most certainly inventions of human fancy but you seem to be asserting that they all are.
I don't know for certain that this is the case, but you are welcome to your beliefs.

Do you have credible evidence that some god beliefs are not inventions of human fancy?

 

[asydhouse]

<snip>
My thinking is fine.



As far as I am aware you have not elaborated as to exactly what you meant when you used the word 'conceit' but I took it for how it is generally understood.

It seems to be yet another word that can be used for a number of expression, but regardless, my understanding of 'god' even as an idea can hardly be called 'conceit'.

I defined the word immediately after I introduced it. The fact that you ignored that extremely obvious sentence in which I made sure that you would not take it to be a demeaning or insulting use of the word, so that you would understand it as I meant you to understand that it was a way of summing up a conceptual construction of thought, calls into question your motives in engaging in this discussion. (Or calls into question the processes/quality of your thinking).

In the hilited sentence above, the correct usage of the word would be "a conceit". God as a concept is "a conceit".

Your insistence that consciousness can exist independently of the physical, and yet interact with the physical without entering into physicality,

Show me where I have claimed this to be the case. I have only stated that it might be possible. I certainly haven't made any claims that it CAN.

You claimed that consciousness can exist without a physical medium:

might that consciousness uses the brain and body to experience a human life. In this case the 'non material something' is consciousness itself.

The something else unknown might be that the brain creates consciousness (as per evolution without any outside or other alternate realities etc) but as part of the process consciousness once created, does not die. It could be a natural part of what it is. the point being, we do not know and can not know through any scientific method so far invented.

In either case, a physical medium would not be required.

The obvious logical understanding of your statements is that you think consciousness can interact with the physical without itself being physical. Your dallying with "god is an idea" also was papering over that crack.

Indeed, I even said that god might be consciousness and that it is interacting with the physical universe in relation to everything that is conscious.

In metaphor, an example is: Someone creates a virtual reality and then puts their self into that virtual reality for the experience.

But anyway, my position is logical and helpful for that. Your lengthy post dealt more with what you think I am than what I am actually saying, and what I am saying isn't really that hard to understand.

No indeed, your position boils down again and again to "Anything is possible, and we can't know, and I choose to take no position either way on any question."

All your wordy protestations appear to be a shaggy dog story. There's no substance at all in the end.

Pure sophistry. I have no further interest in grappling with your ghost.

 

[tsig]

The context of my posts say otherwise bruto (in relation to the idea of god) that idea can be defined and as I have said, and you know - the idea of god and gods are defined by those who believe in them and as I said - if there is a god which created this universe, we are unlikely to be able to define it very accurately at all.

This does not mean that it doesn't exist. and in the context of this latest argument, I don't have to define what god is as has been asserted I should.

My position is that it is unknown that god and/or gods do exist, and that the continuation of consciousness after the death of the body is also unknown
but it might be the case and until evidence certain and irrefutably confirms either way, I remain skeptical and resist the temptation to believe either way or argue for or against.

My position is a logical one.

What would you consider evidence?

Show me.

Show you what?

Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.

Well you pick up a proposed holy book and you read it intently and devoutly and if you perceive a burning in your bosom then you will know you're sitting too close to the fire.

 

[tsig]

In this scenario god, would have just created our local bit of universe, from an older bit and so on ad infinitum. Really the possibilities are endless.

I like the one where our universe was squeezed out of a zit on the butt* of the Great Green Gobenpucker.


Really the possibilities are endless.

*several sects argue for the arm.

 

[tsig]

Turtles all the way down, in other words.

Well, Really the possibilities are endless so turtles would be as good as any other.

 

[tsig]

That has already been solved in this thread. I cannot logically be 'turtles all the way down'.

Sorry but Really the possibilities are endless.

 

[punshhh]

I like the one where our universe was squeezed out of a zit on the butt* of the Great Green Gobenpucker.


Really the possibilities are endless.

*several sects argue for the arm.

Sounds good to me, this is the problem with taking human imagination too seriously.

So you're on the don't know team then?

 

[punshhh]

Well, Really the possibilities are endless so turtles would be as good as any other.

No, turtles all the way down goes beyond logic, I would prefer to retain logic myself.

 

[asydhouse]

mm-hmm

It also has something to do with whether it is merely in practice undetectable or whether it is a matter of principle undetectableness. I mean, any chicken, cows or dragons on, say, Alpha Centauri are utterly undetectable to me now. And not just the inherently undetectable ones.

Not true. As it happens, Brian Cox announced in his recent tv special "The Science of Dr Who" that new telescopes are about to come online which will be able to detect the chemical compounds in planetary atmospheres near distant stars (that is to say, they will be able to see into the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars), which if present in the atmospheres will be proof of the presence within those atmospheres of life forms similar to animals in our own biosphere (in that they are processing materials in familiar biological ways that give off these tell tale chemical signatures).

But in fact, the technological problem of developing such telescopes is a different matter to the principle that we can know that life must produce certain tell tales. By reasoning (with sound logic) from what we have found to be a complete set of forces which cover every instance of observed phenomena in our vicinity of the cosmos, we can know what is in principle knowable. This is why we can say there is no undetectable force at work which could be responsible for a person's apparent experience of a ghost. Therefore, an apparent ghost experience is vastly more likely to be explained by aberrant psychology or incomplete observation of circumstances, rather than by the naive position that a ghost must have appeared.

The mere proposal that a ghost might appear is not sufficient to force us to allow that there might be an as yet undiscovered force, or substance, which could be carrying the ghost signal.

 

[asydhouse]

It is fortune telling because you are assuming human beings will not have figured out a way to survive this event in the time allotted.
You are also assuming that we couldn't put the data of our existence into a number of container ships and that the data won't one day be discovered by another intelligent specie.
Those things are quite possible, so by ignoring them and making your statement you are predicting only one future possibility in a manner which is very reminiscent of fortune telling

Oh please! As you full well know, I was making this example as an argument that ideas require a physical medium in order to exist.

The trivial extension of that physical medium into space ships enabling a diaspora of humanity into the galaxy (while to my mind quite likely, given the couple of billion years over which humanity will have developed it's tech and bio spheres, is not guaranteed), is merely to distract from the point of the argument, which is that an "idea" which does not impinge in any way on the physical can have no meaningful existence in the physical universe.

Are you thereby conceding the point?

 

[asydhouse]

No I am not postulating that ideas exist independently of a material brain.

I am saying that the idea that consciousness came before the brain and uses the brain for the experience of being human and when the body dies the consciousness continues, might possibly be the case.

You seem to be saying that I am saying this is a matter of fact, which is not what I am saying at all.
I don't know if it is factual or not, but it could be.

Yeah yeah, we get it: You are saying nothing at all, and saying it over and over again. According to you.

But your words belie that claim: when you say that consciousness came before the brain, what medium are you proposing as the carrier of the consciousness before it becomes dependent on the brain to generate it (as we have most assuredly found, via the accidental alterations to people's brains that have been found to profoundly alter their consciousnesses)?

Frankly, I am definitely annoyed at your claiming the superior ground of logic when you resort to this perverse retreat from taking a stance. You are doing the postmodern dance, which I find a bankrupt, and highly irritating, attitude of smug untouchability.

 

[Navigator]

Convention!



But why raise the possibility at all? It also might be possible that the Celestial Teapot exists. But the whole point of Bertrand Russell’s analogy was to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove the claims of supernaturalists. By using an intentionally absurd analogy, Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works. The burden of proof rests with you to show why you think it possible that god exists given that you consider it important enough to mention it in the first place.

I am unconvinced that there is any BoP resting on me. I am making no statement of claim for a start, nor am I convinced that the convention of BoP extends to those who think it is important enough in the first place to mention anything which they think might be possible. Certainly it is not answering to anything science has to say on the subject as far as can be shown. I am skeptical about your spin here as it appears you are attempting to use it outside its intended invention.

In relation to god, convention while convenient, isn't very convincing and teapots, flying or not, are trivial.

 

[Navigator]

No! By definition gods are supernatural. The notion of supernatural gods has nothing to do with cyborgs which, although (hypothetically) highly advanced, are nevertheless natural entities.

So okay we are making progress in relation to what you would define as being a god.

A god by definition is 'supernatural.'

So this is helpful. What tools of science are able to be applied to supernatural investigation in order to be able to make claims that 'god does not exist' given the statement has been said by some to be a statement of science?

I can think of none off hand, but then i am not the one making such claims and just because I know of none does not signify that there are none.

 

[godless dave]

So this is helpful. What tools of science are able to be applied to supernatural investigation in order to be able to make claims that 'god does not exist' given the statement has been said by some to be a statement of science?

The same ones that can be applied to natural investigation. Why would the approach be different?

 

[Navigator]

Do you have credible evidence that some god beliefs are not inventions of human fancy?

No. This does not give me cause to believe therefore that they are all products of human fancy but it does tend to get me thinking that god as an idea is beyond the ability of any consciousness in human form to explain what god is in any detail. Metaphorical renderings and superficial definitions are as good as it gets.

 

[godless dave]

You miss the point. We assume consciousness is the result of the brain because we have no other way of verifying that it isn't.

We don't assume it, we observe it.

And we assume that when the brain/body dies, the consciousness which experienced that life also dies, because again, we have no way to verify that it doesn't.

Again, we don't assume, we observe.

 

[Navigator]

The same ones that can be applied to natural investigation. Why would the approach be different?

Well, 'the right tool for the right job' is a phrase which springs to mind.

 

[Navigator]

I defined the word immediately after I introduced it. The fact that you ignored that extremely obvious sentence in which I made sure that you would not take it to be a demeaning or insulting use of the word, so that you would understand it as I meant you to understand that it was a way of summing up a conceptual construction of thought, calls into question your motives in engaging in this discussion. (Or calls into question the processes/quality of your thinking).

Can you link me to that post...I would like to see what it is you are suggesting I missed.

Rule of thumb, if there is another word which can be used and there is no chance of it being misinterpreted, use that word. The general understanding and use of the word conceit I obviously do not need to explain to you as you appear to know this.