Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[John Jones]

The null hypothesis is always that X does not exist. The null hypothesis stands until it is disproved, ie until evidence for X is produced.

This has been explained to Navigator at least a dozen times, to no avail. Navigator is impervious to the logic of scientific discovery.

Punnsshh too, for that matter.

 

[John Jones]

We can agree to disagree.

No. You don't get to wave the White Flag of Victory. Nor do you get to declare victory and then retreat.

Every non-trivial point you have tried to make has been refuted. We can all agree that you have been grossly mistaken.

Don't you agree?

 

[mikeb768]

No. You don't get to wave the White Flag of Victory. Nor do you get to declare victory and then retreat.

Every non-trivial point you have tried to make has been refuted. We can all agree that you have been grossly mistaken.

Don't you agree?

So you disagree with disagreeing with me? OK.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

The fundamental problem is that you're presupposing that everything in the universe has to fit into your scheme of created things. You're unable to see past the human tendency to categorize naturalistic occurrences and things as part of a created process, therefore you assume the universe had to be created. However, there are so many fallacies with this, I don't know where to begin.

There's the fallacy of composition. Just because some things in the universe were created doesn't mean the universe as a whole was created.

There's the fallacy of special pleading. Your uncreated creator can't be somehow exempt from the same rules you impose on everything else, just because you say it is.

There's the fallacy of circular reasoning. Your conclusion cannot enter your premises in an attempt to prove itself true.

There's the non-sequitur fallacy. Even assuming you could prove a creator, it does not prove a god. Even proving a god does not prove it's the Abrahamic God. Even proving this God does not prove the Quran is right about God.

Face it, humans see things as created because that's what we were programmed to do by evolution, given that we're a toolmaking species. We build and create things to survive, therefore we see anything we encounter as either a raw material or a construct for our use. This way of thinking has gotten us this far, therefore it's hard to think outside of it.

 

[Craig4]

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.

This starts with an assumption that the universe at some point began. Why is that?

 

[bruto]

So you disagree with disagreeing with me? OK.

No. Most people who use language in the usual way recognize that "agree to disagree" is a closing remark, a statement that you will continue to be impervious to argument, and have nothing further to say. Properly speaking it should announce your withdrawal from a discussion altogether.

A refusal to accept that condition may be a rash measure given the announcement of your implacable refusal to engage in real argument, but it is not a "disagreement to disagree." Quite the opposite.

 

[mikeb768]

This starts with an assumption that the universe at some point began. Why is that?

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

Bit more of an easier position to support then say..oh....off the top of my head....jinns

 

[Craig4]

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

Do tell us about the science.

 

[punshhh]

In the first hilited part you are claiming that "consciousness" can come before physical manifestation: by saying consciousness is clothed in the physical, the clear connotation is that consciousness could be a nonphysical pre-existing condition or "substance" in itself. There is absolutely no logical reason to make such a supposition.

I have just given you a reason for supposition. All philosophical traditions, including the western academic tradition, realise the primary evidence and knowledge of our existence and our own existence. Which is;

Our personal experience of being.

This is primary to all other experience or knowledge including the physical. This is why the philosophical category of idealism exists. This is reason enough to suppose.

This is because the second hilited statement of yours is begging the question of undiscovered forces/matter. Given that all physical phenomena we are aware of are adequately accommodated within the model of physics we currently have, your positing of undiscovered forces/substances is exactly akin to the Russell's teapot. There's just no need to make the proposition. In fact, there is no room in the model for an undiscovered force. It's not required. It's idle speculation which has no bearing on actuality. It's a conceit!

Its not begging the question, it's accepting the degree of our limitations and in this humility, that we cannot presume that what we are aware of is all that is. Now that is a conceit!

 

[punshhh]

Just saying "X is possible", without providing credible evidence will leave you with an unknown.

An unknown is what myself and Navigator are happy with. It's the atheists like yourself who are asserting that this "unknown" does not exist, or should be ignored due its being flawed or wishful thinking.

You can deny an unknown every day before breakfast, but it will get you nowhere and what exists will continue to exist regardless.

It wouldn't be easy, but the claim of no god existing is nevertheless potentially falsifiable. But, frankly it’s not my problem.

I was highlighting the problem with unfalsifiability, it does not apply to philosophical considerations. It is not very philosophical to assume something doesn't exist because it can't currently be detected with scientific instruments.

You mean like Muhammad’s travels to the seventh heaven on his mighty steed Buraq or St Paul being “caught up to the third heaven"? And what do you mean by “soul”?

Yes, something which goes to the core of ones experience of existing.

No-one should rule out such possibilities but their existence remains improbable to a greater or lesser degree without supporting evidence . I don’t accept your limiting of “probabilities”.

My limiting of probabilities is merely pointing out that probabilities of events in the physical world are all that can be achieved. Compairing the probabilities of hypotheticals is meaningless, but you seem to be attempting it.

You were talking of “reasonable” possibility. My comment was that such a possibility is only “reasonable” if one has good cause to think that a teapot has been placed in orbit in the first place. Otherwise it joins the ranks of other improbable possibilities like pixies and unicorns.

There is no good cause to think that a teapot is in orbit, which is probably why there isn't a school of philosophy about flying teapots.

There is a school of philosophy about what can or cannot be said about existence and alternative rational causes of it.

 

[asydhouse]

We can agree to disagree.

Only because we live in a liberal secular democracy which is the fruit of the Enlightenment that our European culture underwent when men of intelligence used critical thinking and sound reasoning to free the energies of our societies from the crushing and stifling yoke of the religious institutions which had chained our minds in the darkness of superstition for 1500 years.

If we lived in an Islamic state, we'd be having to learn the cursed quran by rote in lieu of learning to think for ourselves, and we'd have to accept the same pitiable level of "reason" and misinformation from self-righteous buffoons calling themselves religious leaders and wise men that leads you to post such obvious nonsense as if it were revelatory source of wonderment.

The Taliban's cruelty and arrogantly self-righteous ignorance is the direct consequence of believing in your disgusting philosophy, and you should be ashamed of yourself for persisting with posting repeatedly what are tantamount to lies, wrapped up in a pathetic "logic" which goes effectively "I say it's so, therefore you are stupid and I am better than you."

Ironic that you use the internet and our enlightenment to make use of the opportunity we have provided you to think original thoughts and be free to speak your mind, only to use the opportunity to express your disavowal of our enlightenment.

In short, "we can agree to disagree" only because we don't live in an Islamic culture.

 

[asydhouse]

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

In this very thread I have described the current ideas of Alan Guth wherein he is describing an ongoing universe from which small regions suddenly undergo expansion, effectively budding off from the universe and becoming separate regions of expansion, or baby universes. Science is an ongoing project, and we do not have all the answers. We do have better ideas than "god did it".

You are either ignoring this inconvenient hypothesis in order to shoe horn your world view into the shoe of your faulty logic in the OP, or you haven't bothered to read my contributions to this thread. Either way, your intransigent belief in "science" as revealed truth demonstrates your complete failure to grasp anything but your own certitude.

You are making a quite tremendously bad advert for your religion's supposed "benefits".

But I get the impression you are only here to gloat over our impending torture in hell, rather than to make any effort to grow in your own self, or to exercise any compassionate desire to help anyone else.

 

[Brian-M]

There is no good cause to think that a teapot is in orbit, which is probably why there isn't a school of philosophy about flying teapots.

Someday a rich eccentric might decide to pay for a teapot to be launched into space just to mess with people who refer to that argument.

 

[asydhouse]

I have just given you a reason for supposition. All philosophical traditions, including the western academic tradition, realise the primary evidence and knowledge of our existence and our own existence. Which is;

Our personal experience of being.

This is primary to all other experience or knowledge including the physical. This is why the philosophical category of idealism exists. This is reason enough to suppose.
Its not begging the question, it's accepting the degree of our limitations and in this humility, that we cannot presume that what we are aware of is all that is. Now that is a conceit!

This is just nonsense. If philosophers take it seriously, then they are no longer engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, and are just jabbering surreal poetry of no consequence.

A baby is nothing but perception. All it knows is sensation. You are claiming that because of that first experience, we can never know objective reality. I call that bs. Your faulty logic is a consequence of your entertaining this academic bs.

All is explained!

 

[asydhouse]

An unknown is what myself and Navigator are happy with. It's the atheists like yourself who are asserting that this "unknown" does not exist, or should be ignored due its being flawed or wishful thinking.

You can deny an unknown every day before breakfast, but it will get you nowhere and what exists will continue to exist regardless.


I was highlighting the problem with unfalsifiability, it does not apply to philosophical considerations. It is not very philosophical to assume something doesn't exist because it can't currently be detected with scientific instruments.
Yes, something which goes to the core of ones experience of existing.


My limiting of probabilities is merely pointing out that probabilities of events in the physical world are all that can be achieved. Compairing the probabilities of hypotheticals is meaningless, but you seem to be attempting it.


There is no good cause to think that a teapot is in orbit, which is probably why there isn't a school of philosophy about flying teapots.

There is a school of philosophy about what can or cannot be said about existence and alternative rational causes of it.

The argument you make is that the instruments we have are somehow lacking.

My argument is more like that there is no reason to think there might be any as yet undetected forces or conditions of matter, since everything so far detected fits into the model, and the model doesn't beg for any as yet undiscovered forces etc.

There's no empty seats at the tea party. When the Mad Hatter cries "All move round one", we are left with no mysteriously empty seats where before they were all occupied.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

We can agree to disagree.

So that was the extent of your logic and reason? Some unsupported assertions that you cling to when challenged but cant actually defend?

colour me unimpressed.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

There is no good cause to think that a teapot is in orbit, which is probably why there isn't a school of philosophy about flying teapots.

just as there is no good cause to think any kind of god created the universe. Seems like weight be getting somewhere...

 

[Tassman]

An unknown is what myself and Navigator are happy with. It's the atheists like yourself who are asserting that this "unknown" does not exist, or should be ignored due its being flawed or wishful thinking.

You can deny an unknown every day before breakfast, but it will get you nowhere and what exists will continue to exist regardless.

I am not saying “that this unknown does not exist”. I have said repeatedly that some claims of the existence of say, gods, pixies or unicorns are improbable. They remain possible but improbable and until such time as credible evidence is produced they remain, in practical terms, non-existent.

I was highlighting the problem with unfalsifiability, it does not apply to philosophical considerations. It is not very philosophical to assume something doesn't exist because it can't currently be detected with scientific instruments.

It does apply to science and ultimately all philosophical premises are based on knowledge acquired by science. Philosophy is unable to acquire new knowledge on its own.

Yes, something which goes to the core of ones experience of existing.

Even if these “something’s” are clearly delusions as per my examples?

My limiting of probabilities is merely pointing out that probabilities of events in the physical world are all that can be achieved. Compairing the probabilities of hypotheticals is meaningless, but you seem to be attempting it.

A hypothetical nevertheless concerns proposed real possibilities and as such they are either probable or improbable hypotheticals.

There is no good cause to think that a teapot is in orbit, which is probably why there isn't a school of philosophy about flying teapots.

This is precisely the point of the analogy, i.e. the burden of proof rests with those who argue for the Celestial Teapot's existence (or the existence of pixies or gods or unicorns or any other unevidenced beliefs). It does not rest with those skeptical of such claims.

There is a school of philosophy about what can or cannot be said about existence and alternative rational causes of it.

Correct. It’s called ‘natural philosophy’. It was the precursor of the natural sciences such as physics which have superseded it.

 

[punshhh]

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

Its the principle I am pointing out, surely any suitable physical medium in which agency can in principle operate would be required.

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

The distinction between alien life forms and gods becomes lost the more advanced the technology of the alien.

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

Within the physical world we are acquainted with perhaps, but there might well be other worlds. Also I see no theoretical barrier preventing an advanced alien life form from developing the technology to manipulate matter and/or spacetime.

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

Agreed.

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.

In fact it seems more likely to me that if a God of the bible, for example, existed, that it would actually be an advanced alien. A true all powerful God would seem less likely to get up to that kind of shenanigans.