Smart Kid

[BillyJoe]

Much like children growing up and letting go of the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy once they understood the natural explanations for them, we need to grow up and let go of the idea of gods.

Except that the concept of god is not really equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth faerie.

 

[cyborg]

That would rather depend on which concept of god one is discussing would it not?

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm not about to start defending god, sorry.

 

[wolfgirl]

Except that the concept of god is not really equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth faerie.

How exactly is it different? They're all things that were made up, and they provide an explanation for things that have natural explanations. Once you understand the natural explanations, what further need have you of the supernatural ones?

 

[cyborg]

I'm not about to start defending god, sorry.

Eh? Either you recognise that the term god refers to any number of entities with various properties or you do not. If you do then saying god is not equivalent to mythical being X is rather presumptuous.

 

[The Grave]

IT's alive.....

By that definition is a virus alive? A prion?

NO. The virus needs other 'living' materials to propagate. Therefore it does not 'live' by MRSGREN's standard.

A Prion is most definitely alive... I "saw" one once on a trip in the Southern Oceans. Reminded me of a pigeon!


I said adolescence, not teenager-hood.

You say tomato I say toma'e'to....de de de....

Griff...

 

[BillyJoe]

You say tomato I say toma'e'to....de de de....

Griff...

You become a teenager on your 13th birthday, but not an adolescent.

 

[BillyJoe]

How exactly is it different? They're all things that were made up, and they provide an explanation for things that have natural explanations. Once you understand the natural explanations, what further need have you of the supernatural ones?

There are natural explanations for christmas presents, easter eggs, and money in your glass of water where you placed your tooth the night before. There are not natural explanations for some things that god is credited with. Nobody knows, for example, why anything exists at all, or where the laws of physics came from, or how the big bang started. So god is not equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth faerie.

 

[BillyJoe]

Eh? Either you recognise that the term god refers to any number of entities with various properties or you do not. If you do then saying god is not equivalent to mythical being X is rather presumptuous.

Some versions of god, or some attributes of god can be disproved, but not all attributes can be (see above). Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.

 

[cyborg]

Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.

Rubbish. I was actually visited by Santa Claus. It is your problem if you were too naughty as a boy that your parents had to make you feel better by filling your stocking on Christmas Eve.

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, then...santa claus is easily dispensed with by discovering that he is a different person every time you meet him; so either he changes his body, voice, and b.o. every time you sit on his knee, or he is one of many other boys' fathers donning a silly red and white suit.

 

[cyborg]

Duh. Santa Claus is magic. He manifests himself in many ways.

 

[RandFan]

Well, then...santa claus is easily dispensed with by discovering that he is a different person every time you meet him; so either he changes his body, voice, and b.o. every time you sit on his knee, or he is one of many other boys' fathers donning a silly red and white suit.

Odd, that sorta sounds like god.

 

[BillyJoe]

You sat on god's knee when you were a boy?

 

[wolfgirl]

There are natural explanations for christmas presents, easter eggs, and money in your glass of water where you placed your tooth the night before. There are not natural explanations for some things that god is credited with. Nobody knows, for example, why anything exists at all, or where the laws of physics came from, or how the big bang started. So god is not equivalent to santa claus, the easter bunny, or the tooth faerie.

There's a big difference between saying that we don't know the natural explanation for everything yet and saying that there are no natural explanations for them.

There was a time when humans didn't know the natural explanation for thunder. At that time, someone (perhaps your ancestor) would have said "Nobody knows why the sky rumbles, so it must be a god causing it. How else can you possibly explain it?" Then we learned what causes thunder. No more need for a god to explain that.

Similarly, just because we can't explain something right here, right now, today, doesn't mean we never will.

Just think of how very many things were originally attributed to a god or gods that we now know have natural explanations. So why must you insist on holding that the things we still can't explain must somehow be attributed to a god? Doesn't our very history suggest otherwise?

 

[Beerina]

Don't worry - that's not condescending.

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

May I direct you to a class on neural networks and various gradient descent algorithms?

I assure you the math behind evolution is rock solid. If God created life, he would have to actively work to stop evolution from happening.

Evolution also explains sexual reproduction as well as the variations you see between parent and child (controlled variation in structure scours the gradient descent space much faster than rare but literal mutations do.)

The Theory of God must claim this cannot be why, and that thus the variation (in faces, for example) is due to personal preference.

 

[BillyJoe]

There's a big difference between saying that we don't know the natural explanation for everything yet and saying that there are no natural explanations for them.

The word "yet" seems to imply that you think that natural explanations for everything are just a matter of time. I do not think that conclusion is justified. It could just as likely turn out the natural explanations for some things will never be found. This would be the case if the universe ends before these natural explanations are found. This would also be the case if humans are not intelligent enough to find out what these natural explanations are. But this also means that we may never know whether or not everything has a natural explanation.

In other words, I am not saying that "there are no natural explanations for them". I am saying that "we may never know whether or not everything has a natural explanation".

There was a time when humans didn't know the natural explanation for thunder. At that time, someone (perhaps your ancestor) would have said "Nobody knows why the sky rumbles, so it must be a god causing it. How else can you possibly explain it?" Then we learned what causes thunder. No more need for a god to explain that.

I was not talking about all the possible varieties of god.
Many of those have been disproven.
However, god, the creator of the universe, has not been disproven.

Similarly, just because we can't explain something right here, right now, today, doesn't mean we never will.

And it doesn't mean we will either.

Just think of how very many things were originally attributed to a god or gods that we now know have natural explanations. So why must you insist on holding that the things we still can't explain must somehow be attributed to a god? Doesn't our very history suggest otherwise?

I'm not actually saying that. I'm saying that this cannot be disproven which makes the concept of god different from the concept of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie. That is all.

 

[wolfgirl]

I'm saying that this cannot be disproven which makes the concept of god different from the concept of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie. That is all.

A great number of things that we can imagine are possible cannot be disproven. Should we believe in them all? I prefer to believe in things we know, and withhold judgement on things we don't. Rather than saying, "I don't know there's no god, so until someone proves otherwise, I'll just believe in one," I prefer to say, "I don't know there's no god, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is." I can't even imagine thinking any other way. For which I'm extremely glad.

 

[BillyJoe]

...I prefer to say, "I don't know there's no god, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

Would you also prefer to say:

"I don't know there's no santa claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

If not, then you will have to admit that the question of god's existence is not on par with the question of santa claus' existence.

 

[rcronk]

Another option would be to remain agnostic instead of choosing one way or the other.