Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes and more than this all concepts are human inventions.

and yet you are happy to dismiss some unsupported ones and not others. Special pleading much?

 

[asydhouse]

No, you really can't do that validly. If you think you can, you really haven't been paying attention to the diversity of god concepts and the inherent unfalsifiability of numerous god concepts. What one can do is demonstrate where the burden of proof is in the first place with regards to their claim for the unfalsifiable ones.



This really does not follow logically at all. If they recycled impossible or falsified aspects you could have an argument for those, yes, but your statement is much broader than that.

My contention is that if it affects the physical universe, it has to interact with it, and any interaction is in principle detectable. It only remains to define each value of god that you want to test, and then see if it manifests. If it doesn't, that value for "god" does not exist (at this current time, to allow for changing circumstances… but more than simply a later time to retest would eventually be required to keep any definition as an open possibility).

So I don't accept that it is meaningful to claim a possible god with unfalsifiable properties. Such a god would for all intents and purposes be non-existent in this universe. Of course, if you want to posit a god which set the universe in motion from outside, and is forever divorced from the universe we inhabit, that's an unfalsifiable proposition to be sure, but again is irrelevant to the actual universe we inhabit. Our remote descendants may well have achieved a far more comprehensive analysis of the universal phenomenon, and comprehend the ongoing structure of the dynamic evolution of the universe/s to such a degree that even this unfalsifiable notion of a god may become redundant, unrequired, or even falsified!

We already have hints that "inflation" is the "cause" of the universe; in this picture there exists a thing we may as well call the entire universe, from which little buds outgrow in the form of tiny areas of "inflation" suddenly taking off, which appears to us as the big bang at the start of "our" universe. The dark energy fuelling our inflationary event continues to stretch our space-time ever "outward". (Inflation occurs at different rates over different periods, so the current rate of inflation is slower than the burst of inflation soon after the apparent "big bang", but that rate is increasing, and eventually our entire area of the "universe" will have expanded so much that each and every atom will inhabit it's own lonely space-time bubble, and this universe will effectively be kaput).

To expand on this picture (pun! ): The "body" of the entire universe from which we sprang is a seething mass of different rates of inflation varying from place to place over the entire universe, so that rates increase and decrease continually, occasionally inflating a region strongly and effectively removing it from contact with the rest of the entire universe. This is a development in our concept of cosmological inflation that is currently being developed by Alan Guth, the bloke who originally suggested inflation as a a possible explanation for problems in Cosmology back in the 80s.

Far from broad, I think my claim that each and every definition of "god" can be tested on its own merits is a very particular process. As more and more instances of god claim are tested and found wanting, the similarities between god categories must surely begin to reveal sets of god traits which have been debunked, until we run out of ideas, and we have exhausted the human imagination for god types, and no further proposals are forthcoming. It's a pragmatic approach, not an abstract or idealised description at all.

 

[Aridas]

My contention is that if it affects the physical universe, it has to interact with it, and any interaction is in principle detectable.

I disagree, with god concepts that involve the being being a master manipulator at the quantum level or below as an example. Claiming that such interactions are necessarily detectable or, more relevantly, distinguishable as being manipulated is almost certainly going to be a badly losing proposition. Going beyond that, gods that intentionally only interact with our universe outside of the areas that we are actively paying scientific attention to aren't particularly detectable by us, either. Then there's the gods proposed that actively interfere with the results obtained by science to hide their existence and perhaps other things as well. It really doesn't matter if the interaction is in principle detectable if we are actively being stopped from being able to detect it in the first place, regardless.

So I don't accept that it is meaningful to claim a possible god with unfalsifiable properties. Such a god would for all intents and purposes be non-existent in this universe.

I already pointed out multiple possibilities that would qualify a god as existent and unfalsifiable.

Our remote descendants may well have achieved a far more comprehensive analysis of the universal phenomenon, and comprehend the ongoing structure of the dynamic evolution of the universe/s to such a degree that even this unfalsifiable notion of a god may become redundant, unrequired, or even falsified!

May become? Unfalsifiable god concepts, as a general matter, are redundant and unrequired from the start, even if saying unrequired is redundant, itself. They have been for a long time, no less. Still, now you're claiming that things that are conceptually unfalsifiable could, in fact, be falsified. Would you happen to have evidence to support that?

Far from broad, I think my claim that each and every definition of "god" can be tested on its own merits is a very particular process. As more and more instances of god claim are tested and found wanting, the similarities between god categories must surely begin to reveal sets of god traits which have been debunked, until we run out of ideas, and we have exhausted the human imagination for god types, and no further proposals are forthcoming. It's a pragmatic approach, not an abstract or idealised description at all.

You're assuming a lot that's not in evidence here, to say the least. Still, I've already provided a few traits that seem to contradict your views.

 

[Navigator]

Well, it's true that you don't have absolute evidence that things will tend to change towards or maintain a particular temperature if one puts them into a powered, fully operational, and properly used refrigerator. Given that you don't have absolute evidence, obviously, you have no imperative to use a refrigerator, right?

Can you clarify that as it went over my head. I do you a refrigerator but i don't see the connection.
I would say that there are things about my use of a refrigerator that I would accept as absolute.

More directly, you seem to have issues with the difference between accepting an idea to be true *because* it's useful to accept and accepting an idea to be true because it's 100% certain to be the case.

I dont have issues about that. How is an idea true? When it is found to be true, is it useful to continue referring to it as an idea?

There's plenty to be curious about, speculate on, and seek data about, even when one accepts numerous things to be true for useful purposes. The efforts tend to be far more directed towards learning more useful information, in that case, no less.

The nature of hobbies. What do you regard as being 'more useful' - arguing about things that cannot be proven one way or another doesn't seem very useful or logical even, but people do it. People do all sorts of things I don;t think of as useful, but if they are happy and are not causing grief to others through it, who am I to complain?

Seriously? You're jumping from "absolute evidence" to "evidence of absolutes?" The two are very different things. Science has amassed lots and lots of evidence about what seem to be absolutes. There is still no such thing as absolute evidence when it comes to understanding reality.

Really? Okay. Maybe it is just in my little subjective corner of the universe. I don;t suppose really there is need for evidence of things which we know as absolute.

 

[asydhouse]

I disagree, with god concepts that involve the being being a master manipulator at the quantum level or below as an example. Claiming that such interactions are necessarily detectable or, more relevantly, distinguishable as being manipulated is almost certainly going to be a badly losing proposition. Going beyond that, gods that intentionally only interact with our universe outside of the areas that we are actively paying scientific attention to aren't particularly detectable by us, either. Then there's the gods proposed that actively interfere with the results obtained by science to hide their existence and perhaps other things as well. It really doesn't matter if the interaction is in principle detectable if we are actively being stopped from being able to detect it in the first place, regardless.



I already pointed out multiple possibilities that would qualify a god as existent and unfalsifiable.



May become? Unfalsifiable god concepts, as a general matter, are redundant and unrequired from the start, even if saying unrequired is redundant, itself. They have been for a long time, no less. Still, now you're claiming that things that are conceptually unfalsifiable could, in fact, be falsified. Would you happen to have evidence to support that?



You're assuming a lot that's not in evidence here, to say the least. Still, I've already provided a few traits that seem to contradict your views.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of a "god" that was just a total trickster like you describe. Still, until such time as such a creature reveals itself, I'd still go with its irrelevance to our reality as the de facto condition that it effectively doesn't exist. When it does manifest to us, if it doesn't turn out to be just an advanced alien messing with us, I suppose we would then have to adjust our model of reality. As has been said, all models are provisional.

As to things that are in principle unfalsifiable being able to be falsified in future: well, in principle is again an aspect of our current model that might have to be readjusted in light of future discoveries. Obviously I can't know or predict, and my example of the true origins of the big bang being in an ongoing "super universe" or as I called it "entire universe", where inflation is the key, is a current speculative bit of cosmology being worked on by Alan Guth, and I used that as an example that 2 or 5 billion years from now may have become a part of their more fully developed model of reality… and the idea of the necessity of a priori cause for this universe will have been pushed back.

Just idle thoughts on the fly, so your critique was well taken, and welcome, Aridas.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It can be observed that causality and agency occur naturally in the world we find ourselves in.

Agency in the form of biological organisms whose functions are based upon chemical reactions, yes.

Therefore it is rational to consider that these two phenomena occur on a more universal scale,

You mean like alien-life forms? Sure, that's a rational possibility to consider.

But if you mean something that's not based on chemical reactions, no. That doesn't follow.

this would include the possibility of intelligent fabricators.

Hypothetical possibilities such as ancient aliens visiting earth, or that life on earth was seeded by aliens? Sure.

Such things could in certain circumstances equate to gods.

To inhabitants of primitive cultures, yes. But they wouldn't equate to gods from our point of view, nor would they be covered by the concept of god as used in this specific discussion.

You took the words right out of my mouth. In addition, I would also point out that gods are worshiped entities. An advanced alien race does not equate to gods unless one chooses to worship them. The Time Lords and Daleks are not gods, even though they could wipe out the universe many times over.

 

[Tassman]

I disagree, with god concepts that involve the being being a master manipulator at the quantum level or below as an example. Claiming that such interactions are necessarily detectable or, more relevantly, distinguishable as being manipulated is almost certainly going to be a badly losing proposition. Going beyond that, gods that intentionally only interact with our universe outside of the areas that we are actively paying scientific attention to aren't particularly detectable by us, either. Then there's the gods proposed that actively interfere with the results obtained by science to hide their existence and perhaps other things as well. It really doesn't matter if the interaction is in principle detectable if we are actively being stopped from being able to detect it in the first place, regardless.

What cunning li'l entities these gods of yours must be. ALL of this is unsubstantiated speculation. We have no reason to think that gods behave like this – even if they existed and there is no credible evidence that they do.

I already pointed out multiple possibilities that would qualify a god as existent and unfalsifiable.

Hypothetical possibilities unsupported by evidence! The same arguments could apply to fairies or aliens and are at bottom unhelpful.

May become? Unfalsifiable god concepts, as a general matter, are redundant and unrequired from the start, even if saying unrequired is redundant, itself. They have been for a long time, no less. Still, now you're claiming that things that are conceptually unfalsifiable could, in fact, be falsified. Would you happen to have evidence to support that?

Unfalsifiable gods are undetectable and therefore irrelevant. Basically all you’re saying is that there’s a lot we don’t know about the universe. Certainly this is true but there is no reason to imagine that gods – as we usually define gods, i.e. entities having power over nature or human fortunes -are involved.

You're assuming a lot that's not in evidence here, to say the least. Still, I've already provided a few traits that seem to contradict your views.

The traits you have provided are based on assumptions that are “not in evidence here, to say the least”.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of a "god" that was just a total trickster like you describe. Still, until such time as such a creature reveals itself, I'd still go with its irrelevance to our reality as the de facto condition that it effectively doesn't exist. When it does manifest to us, if it doesn't turn out to be just an advanced alien messing with us, I suppose we would then have to adjust our model of reality. As has been said, all models are provisional.

As to things that are in principle unfalsifiable being able to be falsified in future: well, in principle is again an aspect of our current model that might have to be readjusted in light of future discoveries. Obviously I can't know or predict, and my example of the true origins of the big bang being in an ongoing "super universe" or as I called it "entire universe", where inflation is the key, is a current speculative bit of cosmology being worked on by Alan Guth, and I used that as an example that 2 or 5 billion years from now may have become a part of their more fully developed model of reality… and the idea of the necessity of a priori cause for this universe will have been pushed back.

All good!

Re the hilited: I think it's less confusing to refer to the 'greater cosmos' rather than the "entire universe", when referring to all there is. This compared with the ‘local universe’ which we inhabit - along with the hypothesized myriad of other local universes similar to it.

 

[Aridas]

Can you clarify that as it went over my head. I do you a refrigerator but i don't see the connection.
I would say that there are things about my use of a refrigerator that I would accept as absolute.

Yet, there is no evidence that could be considered absolute, scientifically, to show that those things that you consider to be absolute actually are absolute, which is where you've been stating that you're setting the bar. Given your stated logic and given the lack of absolute evidence, there's no reason to go any further than "I don't know what will actually happen."

I dont have issues about that. How is an idea true? When it is found to be true, is it useful to continue referring to it as an idea?

That you're even asking this suggest that you do have an issue. Which meaning of true in this case? That the idea simply represents something that actually is the case or that the idea has been shown to be accurate as far as we can tell?

The nature of hobbies.

...is irrelevant as part of an answer to that.

What do you regard as being 'more useful' - arguing about things that cannot be proven one way or another doesn't seem very useful or logical even, but people do it.

If we didn't accept numerous things to be true for useful purposes, how could discussions rise above the level of solipsism, if, indeed, we even could have discussions?

People do all sorts of things I don;t think of as useful, but if they are happy and are not causing grief to others through it, who am I to complain?

While that may be true, that's also missing the point. You've demanded what boils down to 100% proof before you're willing to alter your position on whether any gods exist or not, even provisionally. I'm pointing out that that's not a reasonable standard, no matter what the subject, for provisional conclusions.

Really? Okay. Maybe it is just in my little subjective corner of the universe. I don;t suppose really there is need for evidence of things which we know as absolute.

Which is rather begging the question of how we know that they're absolute.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of a "god" that was just a total trickster like you describe.

I rather gathered such.

Still, until such time as such a creature reveals itself, I'd still go with its irrelevance to our reality as the de facto condition that it effectively doesn't exist.

I wouldn't. "Irrelevance to our reality" and "effectively doesn't exist" can suggest that it's worth taking more seriously than the not at all that it actually is. As a general matter for god concepts that are unfalsifiable, it's not that they can be ruled out, it's that there's no reason to allow them to be ruled in, in the first place, when it comes to determining what's reasonable to accept among the available options.

As to things that are in principle unfalsifiable being able to be falsified in future: well, in principle is again an aspect of our current model that might have to be readjusted in light of future discoveries.

Generally, the god concepts that are in principle unfalsifiable are not dependent upon the specifics of what model is being used, though, rather they depend upon general concepts that can be postulated without changing the explanatory value of the models at all.

Obviously I can't know or predict, and my example of the true origins of the big bang being in an ongoing "super universe" or as I called it "entire universe", where inflation is the key, is a current speculative bit of cosmology being worked on by Alan Guth, and I used that as an example that 2 or 5 billion years from now may have become a part of their more fully developed model of reality… and the idea of the necessity of a priori cause for this universe will have been pushed back.

I tend to use "existence" or "existence as a whole" in a somewhat similar fashion. It tends to help reduce the confusion when pointing out why events such as the "Big Bang" being the origin of "our universe" are not evidence that "existence definitely had a beginning, therefore God," much as that argument, which I've seen too many times, has more issues than just ones that can be shown by clarifying that.

Just idle thoughts on the fly, so your critique was well taken, and welcome, Aridas.

Thank you. I do try to keep my critiques accurate, regardless.

What cunning li'l entities these gods of yours must be. ALL of this is unsubstantiated speculation. We have no reason to think that gods behave like this – even if they existed and there is no credible evidence that they do.

If you'd paid attention, I'm pretty sure that I kept that fairly clear.

Hypothetical possibilities unsupported by evidence! The same arguments could apply to fairies or aliens and are at bottom unhelpful.

Except for pointing out why the claims being made weren't as feasible as the asydhouse had thought. As it is, though, the same arguments generally simply don't quite apply as well to fairies or aliens. Unhelpful, though? Sure. I'm pretty sure that I pointed that out repeatedly, myself.

Unfalsifiable gods are undetectable and therefore irrelevant. Basically all you’re saying is that there’s a lot we don’t know about the universe. Certainly this is true but there is no reason to imagine that gods – as we usually define gods, i.e. entities having power over nature or human fortunes -are involved.

Again, you're implying that I've actually suggested that there's any reason to accept them to be the case, despite me actually saying the exact opposite.

 

[Tassman]

If you'd paid attention, I'm pretty sure that I kept that fairly clear.

OH! So you are espousing the divine-hiddenness/non-belief argument, is that right? Took me a while to cotton on! To be honest I find this argument a tad rarefied and sterile - but to each his own.

Except for pointing out why the claims being made weren't as feasible as the asydhouse had thought. As it is, though, the same arguments generally simply don't quite apply as well to fairies or aliens. Unhelpful, though? Sure. I'm pretty sure that I pointed that out repeatedly, myself.

OK! Then we agree.

Again, you're implying that I've actually suggested that there's any reason to accept them to be the case, despite me actually saying the exact opposite.

So, your argument is not that we accept undetectable, unfalsifiable gods or “allow them to be ruled in”, to use your phrase. Just that they could be there - lurking undetectably in the crevices of the infinite and we’d have no way of knowing it. My apologies, I misunderstood where you were coming from.

 

[Aridas]

OH! So you are espousing the divine-hiddenness/non-belief argument, is that right? Took me a while to cotton on! To be honest I find this argument a tad rarefied and sterile - but to each his own.

I mostly only find that particular line of argument to be of relevance when claims are made that all "gods" can be falsified. Admittedly, I do find it sad that there actually are people who believe in gods that have one or more of the traits that I named. A number of ID proponents for the master manipulator at a tiny scale, for example. An unintentional fringe element of the Pastafarians for the actively manipulating the results of science option, apparently, for another.

OK! Then we agree.

Pretty much.

So, your argument is not that we accept undetectable, unfalsifiable gods or “allow them to be ruled in”, to use your phrase. Just that they could be there - lurking undetectably in the crevices of the infinite and we’d have no way of knowing it. My apologies, I misunderstood where you were coming from.

I characterize it more as that the possibilities are contradictory, not useful, and simply cannot be logically ruled out or falsified, by their nature, thus, one has to take a step back and think about what's worth accepting as true in the first place to resolve the dilemma that such things create, if that hasn't been done already. I tend to treat the "could be there - lurking undetectably in the crevices of the infinite" part as having much less importance than that the evident flaws in reasoning are addressed.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Just wanted to mention, it's too bad the OP flew the coop after things didn't go his way (again) because I wrote a poem just for him. Looks like I won't get a chance to share it now.

*On a side note, I'm almost back in poetry mode Frozenwolf, so I hope you are keeping your skills up, maybe even doing some type of training in the off season.

 

[The Norseman]

Oh. It's now been several hundred posts since our exchange and I think I won't respond as I wanted as I feel that this is too stale to continue.

Should I have put 'at the present time as far as I am aware"?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Oh, what the hell? There's no rule that I can't respond to the OP now that the secondary discussion has died down. It would make a good closing argument.

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

Then the question remains, if the two above statements are in fact "True" can the statement "Something comes from Nothing" Also be True?
*And if you believe this to be so, can you please explain the rationale which you use to support your position.


Further Discussion
In the Quran we are told by God that "Truth stands out clearly from falsehood" [Quran 2:256]. Another way of thinking of this can be that Truth and Lies are unable to occupy the same space. This can also be understood as the basis for Logic.

Logic is defined as: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

If we are to accept that the number "zero" and the number "one" are not equal. Then we can also agree that a computer (for example) that is turned "OFF" and a computer that is turned "ON" are also not operating equally. Just as "Yes" and "No" are not equal.

The basis for a computer to operate successfully relies on Logic. Without Logic not only would your computer not function correctly, it would not even power up. Don't believe me? Then look at the back of your machine and locate the Power supply and then flip the switch which changes the "1" back to a "0" and see for yourself. We can pause for a second and wait for people to return at this point. If you are still reading this you probably chose to leave the Power supply value set to "True" rather than switching it over to "False", congratulations! To everyone else welcome back.

Some Examples of Logic in Islam
Logic in Islam [1] God swears by "the Even and the Odd", #.
Logic in Islam [2] Discussion of Authorship of the Quran using Logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2r8DLvVEA Logic in Islam [3] Discussion of the Quran being interwoven with the Number "19" as a sign for those who choose to disbelieve, [Quran 74:30]. *A conversation which was so compelling that one moderator actually resorted to wholesale censorship.
Logic in Islam [4] Document X? I am still working my way through the entirety of this video, although it was uploaded by a reputable brother and has to do with a group of scientist who are are discussing science, God, and what they describe as the "inescapable conclusion".

*Please avoid using arguments which rely on "Infinite Regress" as this has idea has already been deemed as "illogical", and such an approach is now considered to be "old hat" by both theist and atheist alike. I intentionally left this statement at the bottom of the post, based upon the assumption that most people within this community are often quick to post without even bothering to read that which they are replying to.

You were gone for a while but you came back the same
And you haven't retired these meaningless games
So it seems that you're up to your irksome old tricks
Throwing crap on the wall just to see what will stick
But to make matters worse, with the sources you cite
You refer to your postings to prove yourself right
Yet no matter how widely you gyrate and flail
All your arguments crash to the floor.

Epic Fail!

Every time you show up, you present the same deal
Where your arguments circle like spokes on a wheel
Since your premises match your concluding remarks
And the folks you'd enlighten are left in the dark
I would ask where that leaves you, but I think it's clear
You've got nothing to back up the faith you hold dear
And although your bad arguments fall like a hail
They just shatter and smash on the ground.

Epic Fail!

It makes all of us wonder what's addling you
When you quote the same book that you've yet to prove true
To premonish the faithless with imminent doom
As if citing God's thoughts, that's a lot to assume.
Who made you the new prophet, the spokesman divine?
Do you scare little children when you feel inclined?
It's annoying to hear the devout moan and wail
At the top of their overworked lungs.

Epic Fail!

You commence all your musings with torturous verse
It appears every day that your writing gets worse
It's no wonder your standards of art are so low
If your scripture's the sole source of poems you know
You proclaim it's the greatest of works ever penned
But ignore everything that's been written since then
This old text that you worship is moldy and stale
Yet you bury your face in its folds.

Epic Fail!

You continue to heap up a mountain of wrong
So it isn't surprising your game can't last long
And the tactic you use is a typical one
Of declaring a win before turning to run
For to open your mind, that you just can't afford
Therefore all the responses are safely ignored
And your thoughts, they plod onward as slow as a snail
Staying safe in delusional dreams.

Epic Fail!

 

[mikeb768]

Oh, what the hell? There's no rule that I can't respond to the OP now that the secondary discussion has died down. It would make a good closing argument.




You were gone for a while but you came back the same
And you haven't retired these meaningless games
So it seems that you're up to your irksome old tricks
Throwing crap on the wall just to see what will stick
But to make matters worse, with the sources you cite
You refer to your postings to prove yourself right
Yet no matter how widely you gyrate and flail
All your arguments crash to the floor.

Epic Fail!

Every time you show up, you present the same deal
Where your arguments circle like spokes on a wheel
Since your premises match your concluding remarks
And the folks you'd enlighten are left in the dark
I would ask where that leaves you, but I think it's clear
You've got nothing to back up the faith you hold dear
And although your bad arguments fall like a hail
They just shatter and smash on the ground.

Epic Fail!

It makes all of us wonder what's addling you
When you quote the same book that you've yet to prove true
To premonish the faithless with imminent doom
As if citing God's thoughts, that's a lot to assume.
Who made you the new prophet, the spokesman divine?
Do you scare little children when you feel inclined?
It's annoying to hear the devout moan and wail
At the top of their overworked lungs.

Epic Fail!

You commence all your musings with torturous verse
It appears every day that your writing gets worse
It's no wonder your standards of art are so low
If your scripture's the sole source of poems you know
You proclaim it's the greatest of works ever penned
But ignore everything that's been written since then
This old text that you worship is moldy and stale
Yet you bury your face in its folds.

Epic Fail!

You continue to heap up a mountain of wrong
So it isn't surprising your game can't last long
And the tactic you use is a typical one
Of declaring a win before turning to run
For to open your mind, that you just can't afford
Therefore all the responses are safely ignored
And your thoughts, they plod onward as slow as a snail
Staying safe in delusional dreams.

Epic Fail!

OK that is nice and all but you didn't even bother to try and address the first four lines of the OP, much less anything else. In fact had a moderator actually been paying any attention they would no doubt have moved your creative piece to a more appropriate location as it is obviously "off topic".

Despite you getting a little lost in the forums it is not a bad piece (although a few additional commas would have helped),
But cheers anyway

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

OK that is nice and all but you didn't even bother to try and address the first four lines of the OP, much less anything else.

3 of the first 4 lines were questions that you didn't even answer yourself containing terms that you didn't properly define.

Furthermore regardless of the answers they do nothing to support your silly religion.

 

[mikeb768]

3 of the first 4 lines were questions that you didn't even answer yourself containing terms that you didn't properly define.

Furthermore regardless of the answers they do nothing to support your silly religion.

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

Then the question remains, if the two above statements are in fact "True" can the statement "Something comes from Nothing" Also be True?


The basis for the discussion is that at some point something which was itself uncreated had to create, thus we exist. So yes my position seems to be the only one which has merit. Not "silly" but simple, logical even.

 

[Navigator]

Yet, there is no evidence that could be considered absolute, scientifically, to show that those things that you consider to be absolute actually are absolute, which is where you've been stating that you're setting the bar. Given your stated logic and given the lack of absolute evidence, there's no reason to go any further than "I don't know what will actually happen."

I consider one absolute is that I am conscious. Another than I am consciousness. Another that I am living on a planet in the physical universe.
Science could show these to be absolutely true.

That you're even asking this suggest that you do have an issue. Which meaning of true in this case? That the idea simply represents something that actually is the case or that the idea has been shown to be accurate as far as we can tell?

I am referring to ideas. Specifically the idea of consciousness continuing after body death and the idea of god existing. There is no 'issue' as you imply.
If any idea turns out to be true, it becomes fact. It need no longer be considered an 'idea'.

...is irrelevant as part of an answer to that.

Hobbies are hobbies and attempting to make issue about them is pointless.

If we didn't accept numerous things to be true for useful purposes, how could discussions rise above the level of solipsism, if, indeed, we even could have discussions?

We don't have to accept anything to be true if it is unknown. Solipsism is relative to the individual and their subjective realities. Discussion is relative to the larger shared reality which is objective in relation to the subjective. There does not need to be discussion regarding things that are unknown and only exist as ideas which might be possibilities but are pretty much at present time simply ideas rather than confirmed realities. Any discussion therefore could only happen as hypothetical/philosophical...ideas can be discussed.

While that may be true, that's also missing the point. You've demanded what boils down to 100% proof before you're willing to alter your position on whether any gods exist or not, even provisionally. I'm pointing out that that's not a reasonable standard, no matter what the subject, for provisional conclusions.

What is the 'provisional conclusion'? Is it necessary for those who demand proof for things which are ideas (such as these) and do those who demand the proof demand 100% or would they settle for less. Is the 'playing field' level in regard to this?

My position is logical. I require 100% before I can say 'I know'. Otherwise, I don't know.

Others are less stringent in their requirements, and feel it is acceptable to claim one way or the other without 100% evidence, and this is belief.

Which is rather begging the question of how we know that they're absolute.

Well lets take one. You exist in this physical universe. Do you have evidence to support that this is not an absolute?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

Then the question remains, if the two above statements are in fact "True" can the statement "Something comes from Nothing" Also be True?


The basis for the discussion is that at some point something which was itself uncreated had to create, thus we exist. So yes my position seems to be the only one which has merit. Not "silly" but simple, logical even.

Well first you would have to show that the two initial statements are true. Are they? Can you demonstrate that reliably? Can you define what you mean by nothing and something in a way that makes sense?

Then lets say that for the sake of argument we then agree that 'there must be a something that was not created'. So what? That 'something' doesn't mean God and doesn't mean anything in the Quran is in any way accurate.

So your religion remains silly, no amount of wordplay can make it less so.

 

[gentlehorse]

I consider one absolute is that I am conscious. Another than I am consciousness. Another that I am living on a planet in the physical universe.
Science could show these to be absolutely true.

Not if you are the progenitor solipsist.

That the universe that seems to exist external to you actually exists is a fine axiom. You cannot prove it.

 

[mikeb768]

Well first you would have to show that the two initial statements are true. Are they? Can you demonstrate that reliably? Can you define what you mean by nothing and something in a way that makes sense?

Then lets say that for the sake of argument we then agree that 'there must be a something that was not created'. So what? That 'something' doesn't mean God and doesn't mean anything in the Quran is in any way accurate.

So your religion remains silly, no amount of wordplay can make it less so.

We can agree to disagree.