Smart Kid

[Lonewulf]

There is still the deistic god which is unaccounted for by this argument.
But, already, you are starting to see that the god question is different form the santa question. Could what you have said above about god be applied to santa? Of course not...because no one takes santa seriously!

And I don't take the deistic God seriously. Nor have I ever seen any reason to.

A God that supposedly created the universe but doesn't interfere? Might as well not even exist. And without evidence for his existance, that's even more true.

God was made by the same minds that made up Santa Clause, and has just as much evidence for him.

However, YOU stated that Santa Clause could be disproven. Which you have failed to do so, continuously.

Are you willing to retract your statement now, or do you wish to continue to be a pseudo-philosopher?

 

[BillyJoe]

Ah, silly young fool...

Thank you.

No. I see you have missed the point, but I am not surprised.

My point was that you would have to answer no to my question.
If you say I have missed your point you will have to identify it otherwise I won't believe you had one.

No. Point missed.

If you say I have missed your point you will have to identify it otherwise I won't believe you had one.

So? That does not necessarily mean that he [santa] doesn't exist.

No one takes the question of santa's existence seriously.

Just like the borderline crackpot spouts out how the Illuminati is out to get him, he isn't saying it to amuse people. Yet, it amuses people.

If Democritus was not a borderline crackpot, this is another false analogy.

I'm saying that santa, like god, is unprovable, and that both are analogous in that sense, yes.

I asked if you take santa seriously and you answer that he is unprovable.

Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy.
Try again, pseudo-philosopher.

I asked you: who takes the belief in santa seriously compared to who takes the belief in god seriously. And you answer: "Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy"
.

So, santa is unprovable, and he has not been disproven, then. Even though you refuse to retract your statement that Santa has been disproven, that's okay, I'll forgive you. We all make mistakes, you including. Anyhow...

You must have missed where I retracted that statement. I called it "a bit of hyperbole". It can't be more than a couple of pages back.

Case closed.

You are leaving?

The rest of your post can safely be ignored.

Don't you mean you can't answer the questions?

You have pretty much proven my point, even though you refuse to do so willingly. No matter, my work here is done.

I'm not really trying to win an argument, I'm just trying to put another perpective on things.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Lonewulf]

Don't you mean you can't answer the questions?

There is no point to answering them.

Also, yes, I do have a point, but I can see it bounced off your skull.

You claimed Santa Clause was disprovable. You have yet to retract that claim. I do not understand why, in particular, perhaps ego points.

Santa Clause is not disprovable, and in fact is just as provable as the deistic God. Thus, the two are equal.

That the majority of the population takes one seriously and the other not is meaningless in terms of logic or philosophy or science or anything else.

If you claim that if a majority of people believe something, that that lends it more weight, then you are committing the Argument by Popularity fallacy.

To argue that a majority of a population taking something seriously lends it more weight is to commit the exact same fallacy.

In this argument, you have used the Argument by Incredulity fallacy and the Argument by Popularity fallacy, and also have seemingly lied about Santa Clause being "disprovable".

Not very good so far.

 

[BillyJoe]

Oops, sorry, I thought you had gone.

And I don't take the deistic God seriously. Nor have I ever seen any reason to....A God that supposedly created the universe but doesn't interfere? Might as well not even exist. And without evidence for his existance, that's even more true.

But the very fact that you are making an argument against the deistic god shows that you do take the question of that god's existence seriously. At least more seriously than santa. Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa. Seriously, would you?

God was made by the same minds that made up Santa Clause...

That is not true, Lonewulf, and I think you know that.

However, YOU stated that Santa Clause could be disproven. Which you have failed to do so, continuously...Are you willing to retract your statement now, or do you wish to continue to be a pseudo-philosopher?

Seems you did miss it.

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.
God was not created as a fictional character but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.

 

[BillyJoe]

You claimed Santa Clause was disprovable. You have yet to retract that claim. I do not understand why, in particular, perhaps ego points.

I count three times now counting my last post.

Santa Clause is not disprovable, and in fact is just as provable as the deistic God. Thus, the two are equal.

Another way of explaining this is that just because two things are equal in one respect, doesn't mean that they are automatically equal in all respects.

That the majority of the population takes one seriously and the other not is meaningless in terms of logic or philosophy or science or anything else.

So you say.
Do you disagree that what was created purely as a fictional character for someone's amusement is equivalent to what was created as an explanation for some things for which we have as yet no explanation?

If you claim that if a majority of people believe something, that that lends it more weight, then you are committing the Argument by Popularity fallacy.

And if I am not claiming that?
I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as.

In this argument, you have used the Argument by Incredulity fallacy and the Argument by Popularity fallacy, and also have seemingly lied about Santa Clause being "disprovable".

I have explained why the Argument by Popularity fallacy does not apply. I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation. And I have explained my hyperbole about the disproof of santa claus, after twice admitting to it.

 

[BillyJoe]

...and I am still not getting email alerts to this thread.

 

[Lonewulf]

I count three times now counting my last post.

Oh, well.

Okay, then.

Another way of explaining this is that just because two things are equal in one respect, doesn't mean that they are automatically equal in all respects.

They are similar philosophically, logically, and scientifically. They are unverifiable events made by demonstrably fallible human minds, and not only cannot be disproven nor proven, but also have no predictable effects.

So you say.
Do you disagree that what was created purely as a fictional character for someone's amusement is equivalent to what was created as an explanation for some things for which we have as yet no explanation?

I disagree that God couldn't be fictitious himself. A fictional character created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science.

Now we have a workable method, which has done wonders in not only the prediction of effects in the universe, but also is able to trace back things far enough into the big bang.

We have a workable method. Why do I need an invisible guy that cannot be defended in any scientific sense?

And if I am not claiming that?
I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the point. Santa has as much evidence for him as does God, and that was the point. You are the one that is claiming that I take him seriously.

I take neither Santa Clause nor God seriously, and I see them as analogous as they come. Hell, they both even have kickass beards. They also provide reward and punishment. The only difference is, I'd rather take the coal over hell.

I have explained why the Argument by Popularity fallacy does not apply.

Not very convincingly. Though if you will, point it out to me again, in case I mised it?

I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation.

"I don't take it seriously, therefore it's silly to pose it"

Not to mention how you've continually laughed at me for "seriously posing Santa's existance" -- Once more, an argument from incredulity. It seems silly to think that Santa exists, therefore he can't exist. If you were to prove Santa could be disproven, that argument would fail. Though you say you've retracted such, so I'll let it rest.

 

[Lonewulf]

Oops, sorry, I thought you had gone.

Unfortunatley, no.

But the very fact that you are making an argument against the deistic god shows that you do take the question of that god's existence seriously.

I sure as hell don't.

I take people that are willing to harm me or society seriously, and I oppose attacks on rationality and science, though. To me, that's what faith does.

At least more seriously than santa. Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa. Seriously, would you?

To prove a point, yes.

That is not true, Lonewulf, and I think you know that.

So the ones that made up Santa or God weren't human beings?

Seems you did miss it.

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.

Actually, not entirely true. Santa Clause is a pseudonym of St. Nicholas, who really did exist at one point of time.

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

Maybe he was resurrected and flits amongst us as a ghost charioteer led by flame-nosed reindeer.

Hey, if Jesus did it, why can't he?

Jesus and my flame-nosed reindeer are similar: They're both fictional and silly to my point of view. The same is true of Santa Clause and God. Both are fictional from my viewpoint.

When you can give evidence of God's existance, then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just an uninteresting concept, a bedtime story.

God was not created as a fictional character...

Debatable.

...but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.

The deistic god is very easy to dismiss.

There is no evidence for him. He has no influence in the world. He only made things, and then vanished.

Pfah.

It's the most pathetic explanation there is, and what's even more pathetic is that you have to keep him hidden so deep into the closet so we can't prove things like if prayer works, or if miracles do happen.

It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tactic.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

Living things can because we observe that they can. We only have records so far but we can observe bits of adaptation directly. So while we don't have records of all of human and prehuman history we can watch bacteria evolve and look at fossilized remains.

And you are assuming without base that 'non living' things are incapable of the same thing, that electronic sentience is fundamentally impossible. I think that assumption will be proved wrong, the profit motive for such proof is huge.

 

[Faithkills]

Thanks all for your comments. I call atheism a belief system because it requires a system of other beliefs, like evolution for example, to support it.

Atheism does not require evolution to support it. Atheism merely requires you not to accept things as true with no evidence.

Evolution is it's own thing. You, as a believer, assume if you can undermine the theory of evolution you can undermine atheism. This is erroneous and pathetically illogical. You presuppose that even if you were successful in discrediting all other possible causes that somehow we would be forced to accept your fantasy cause.

Incorrect.

Not knowing is an acceptable state for skeptics, and more importantly much preferred to fabrication, or self serving delusion, or other serving delusion.

 

[wolfgirl]

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.
God was not created as a fictional character but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.

But it still makes him someone who was "created," for whatever purpose. It makes him no less fictional that he was created to explain things we couldn't explain at the time than if he had been created to entertain children.

 

[wolfgirl]

Don't you see that there are other reasons why god cannot be as easily dismissed as santa?

No. And I don't mean that facetiously. I really, truly and honestly don't see that there is any reason to take gods more seriously than I take any other mythological being.

 

[BillyJoe]

They are similar philosophically, logically, and scientifically. They are unverifiable events made by demonstrably fallible human minds, and not only cannot be disproven nor proven, but also have no predictable effects.

Oh well, if you still can't see the difference between a character created as a fantasy for children, and another character posed as an explanation for unresolved aspects of existence, then I guess I will have to give up trying.

I disagree that God couldn't be fictitious himself. A fictional character created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science.

And santa? Was santa also "created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science"? If not, santa and god are not analagous.

Now we have a workable method, which has done wonders in not only the prediction of effects in the universe, but also is able to trace back things far enough into the big bang.

But whilst things remain unexplained, don't you think you are a little premature about casting god with those other characters.
How can a photon be everywhere in no time as in relativity?
How is backwards in time causation at the quatum level be explained?
How can a quantum particle "know" the state of every other quantum particle in the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Until we know the answers to such questions, perhaps we are a little premature in casting god with the tooth faerie.

We have a workable method. Why do I need an invisible guy that cannot be defended in any scientific sense?

I didnt say you did. I just said the concept of god is just a little different than the concept of the easter bunny.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the point. Santa has as much evidence for him as does God, and that was the point. You are the one that is claiming that I take him seriously.

I showed you how the concept of god is taken seriously by billions of people around the world but no one takes the concept of santa seriously. You equated the concept of god with the concept of santa. Therefore I joked that you must take santa seriously. That's all. Just a joke.

Not very convincingly. Though if you will, point it out to me again, in case I mised it?

You quoted it in your own response:
Here it is again...
"I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as."

BillyJoe:

I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation.

"I don't take it seriously, therefore it's silly to pose it"

I'm not convinced form the above that you know what the "Argument by Incredulity" is. Certainly it doesn't apply to the above.

Not to mention how you've continually laughed at me for "seriously posing Santa's existance" -- Once more, an argument from incredulity. It seems silly to think that Santa exists, therefore he can't exist. If you were to prove Santa could be disproven, that argument would fail. Though you say you've retracted such, so I'll let it rest.

Sorry If you interpreted it that way. Also I did so only once that I can remember. And it was meant as a little joke because god is a serious concept and santa is not and you equated the two.

 

[BillyJoe]

I sure as hell don't [take god seriously].

Yes you do. The very fact that you discus the god question seriously and have yet to do so about the tooth faerie, indicates that you think the god question is a serious one but the tooth faerie is not. At the very least, your consider the god question more seriously than you do the tooth faerie.

BillyJoe:

Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa.

To prove a point, yes.

Well, then you will be left arguing with yourself because you won't find anyone willing to argue with you. Santa is a fantasy figure after all.

So the ones that made up Santa or God weren't human beings?

I said they were not products of the same mind.
When humans came up with god they had in mind something serious to explain what seems inexplicable whereas, when they came up with santa, they had fantasy and entertainment in mind.

Actually, not entirely true. Santa Clause is a pseudonym of St. Nicholas, who really did exist at one point of time.

Doesn't work for the tooth faerie and the easter bunny, so the point still stands.

.When you can give evidence of God's existance, then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just an uninteresting concept, a bedtime story.

What makes you think I'm interested in proving God's existence?
What makes you think I think it is even possible to do so?
How is it relevant to this conversation?

.The deistic god is very easy to dismiss....There is no evidence for him. He has no influence in the world. He only made things, and then vanished.

No evidence for the deistic god means you cannot prove he exists.
To prove he does not exist you need evidence that he does not exist.
You haven't provided it.

It's the most pathetic explanation there is [desitic god], and what's even more pathetic is that you have to keep him hidden so deep into the closet so we can't prove things like if prayer works, or if miracles do happen.

Yeah that's right, he's pretty difficult to disprove, as you imply and as I have been saying all along. However, if one day you can explain everything on my list in the previous post, there will be nothing left for the deistic god to do. We can then finally dismiss him. Until then he remains as a possibility, unlike the tooth faerie who never was even intended as a possibility in the first place, just a fantasy for the amusement of the kids.

 

[BillyJoe]

But it still makes him someone who was "created," for whatever purpose. It makes him no less fictional that he was created to explain things we couldn't explain at the time than if he had been created to entertain children....And I don't mean that facetiously. I really, truly and honestly don't see that there is any reason to take gods more seriously than I take any other mythological being.

The tooth faerie is not even remotely relevant to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You may not like god as a reason but, until you can show why there is something rather than nothing, god remains as a possibilty.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The tooth faerie is not even remotely relevant to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You may not like god as a reason but, until you can show why there is something rather than nothing, god remains as a possibilty.

I contend the question is meaningless as written. Why should reality exist in this way and not that way? Why should physics function the way it functions and not some other way? Why are elements reducible to atoms and not peanut butter?

Until you can explain why we live in an atomic universe instead of a peanut butter universe, the existence of Mr. Peanut remains a possibility.

 

[BillyJoe]

I contend the question is meaningless as written.

You contend it do you?
Does this mean you don't have to bother to explain it.

Why should reality exist in this way and not that way? Why should physics function the way it functions and not some other way? Why are elements reducible to atoms and not peanut butter?

Maybe you first have to know the answer to the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. Or, to put it another way, how did something arise out of nothing?

 

[quixotecoyote]

You contend it do you?
Does this mean you don't have to bother to explain it.

Given that I elaborate immediately afterwards and you respond to me, I don't know what you're on about here.

Maybe you first have to know the answer to the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. Or, to put it another way, how did something arise out of nothing?

How do you know there ever was nothing? How do you know a reason exists?

Your implicit assumptions within the question are not justified or probably justifiable leading to the question being invalid.

 

[BillyJoe]

Given that I elaborate immediately afterwards and you respond to me, I don't know what you're on about here.

I didn't see the relevance of the rest of your post to the first part of your post. I still don't.

How do you know there ever was nothing?

I don't, but the alternative is no better. The alternative is that there was always something, which means that time is without beginning. This is no less problematic than how something can arise from nothing. There is no escape.

How do you know a reason exists?

How do I know there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing (assuming there was once nothing)? Again, I don't. But, if there is no reason, then there may be no reason for a lot of other things and then anything goes. Somehow I don't think that helps the case against god.

Your implicit assumptions within the question are not justified...

You have identified two assumptions in my question:
- that there was once nothing.
- that there is a reason why something arises from nothing.

The alternative to those is
- time without beginning.
- reasons are not necessary.

Both alternatives are problematic.

...or probably justifiable leading to the question being invalid.

I don't get that.

 

[Lonewulf]

Oh well, if you still can't see the difference between a character created as a fantasy for children, and another character posed as an explanation for unresolved aspects of existence, then I guess I will have to give up trying.

Indeed. And if you can't see the similarities of one fiction and another, I can't help you either.

And santa? Was santa also "created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science"? If not, santa and god are not analagous.

Sure. They're both similarly unprovably, and similarly can't be disproven, but they're not analgous at all.

The point is lost on religious fools, I guess.

But whilst things remain unexplained, don't you think you are a little premature about casting god with those other characters.

No.

How can a photon be everywhere in no time as in relativity?
How is backwards in time causation at the quatum level be explained?
How can a quantum particle "know" the state of every other quantum particle in the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Until we know the answers to such questions, perhaps we are a little premature in casting god with the tooth faerie.

"We don't know, therefore this invisible guy, God must have done it"?

If there is a God that made "something rather than nothing", then once again: WHO MADE GOD?

If God existed for eternity, then it's just as likely that "something" existed for eternity. The explanation explains nothing.

I didnt say you did. I just said the concept of god is just a little different than the concept of the easter bunny.

You mean the easter bunny, a character based on the day and idea of certain pagan fertility religious beliefs?

I'm skeptical.

I showed you how the concept of god is taken seriously by billions of people around the world but no one takes the concept of santa seriously.

And yet, you still seem to not understand that it's a meaningless question. In philosophy, that's argument by popularity. In science, it doesn't MATTER what most people believe if it doesn't follow the scientific process.

You equated the concept of god with the concept of santa. Therefore I joked that you must take santa seriously. That's all. Just a joke.

Considering how much you layed into me with that joke and mocked me, I'm not amused.

You quoted it in your own response:
Here it is again...
"I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as."

I still fail to see your point.

I'm not convinced form the above that you know what the "Argument by Incredulity" is. Certainly it doesn't apply to the above.

So, because someone doesn't take something seriously, they can disregard it entirely without even considering it?

Okay. I don't take God seriously, therefore I can disregard it entirely without even considering it. You lose.

Or, mayhaps that's what's referred to as a logical fallacy?

Sorry If you interpreted it that way. Also I did so only once that I can remember. And it was meant as a little joke because god is a serious concept and santa is not and you equated the two.[/QUOTE]

You certainly mentioned the "taking Santa seriously" bit more than once, and ignored the overall point when you did so.

Once again, I am not, nor was I, amused.