What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Mashuna]

Well if there are no intelligent creators, did the known universe of the materialists spring from nothing?

If we're going to have something spring from nothing, your position is that it's more likely to be a fully-formed being capable of creating universes, mine is that it's more likely to be a collection of sub-atomic particles.

I am not dodging this issue I'm pointing out that the materialist outlook on these questions is equally paradoxical.

Of the two options outlined above, I really don't consider the probabilities to be equal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do not hold beliefs, I have rationally come to the conclusions I have.

You are confusing faulty logic with empirical rationality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have done so in post 253.

And yet that supposed evidence, "people design things therefore people were designed" is not a supportable argument. It is not a valid logic postulate. You are claiming because one thing is [X], all things are [X].

 

[Pup]

I am not dodging this issue I'm pointing out that the materialist outlook on these questions is equally paradoxical.

The difference is that the materialist view can simply end with "we don't know" or "we don't know yet." It's rare for a deist view to end that way, and that's where calls for evidence start to happen, and where the hand-waving begins.

 

[AlBell]

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

an indirectly observed quantity

I.E. indescribable.

God == Energy

There, that fixed it!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let's apply a little logic:
It has been said here that: (A) Existence requires an intelligent basis.
OK, let's test that statement.
We have existence, hence because of (A), we must have an intelligent basis for that existence. What is an intelligent basis? Is it something that exists? If not, then existence came from nothing. If so, because of (A), an intelligent basis requires an intelligent basis (call it IB 2). But if that intelligent basis exists, it too requires an intelligent basis (call it IB 3). But then that intelligent basis will require IB 4, etc., etc... So either existence comes from nothing or an infinite sequence of intelligent bases.
If these two alternatives make no sense, we must reject (A).
Being a rational person, I reject (A), but others (not so rational) may choose to believe in an infinite sequence of IBs or -- alternatively -- existence popping out of nothing.

 

[dafydd]

If you aren't prepaired to explain it yourself, there is no obligation for you to continue posting.

I read this reference the last time you linked to it, it did not explain what energy is, only what it does.

Let me recap for you where the discussion on this issue had got to the last time I asked what energy is.

Energy = forces/influences acting between atoms/subatomic particles.

Atoms/subatomic particles = energy.

Energy is that which acts on itself.

Existence is forces acting on themselves, resulting in the appearance of something rather than nothing.

So if the energy stopped acting on itself, what would exist? nothing?

That's not even wrong. Have you ever studied physics?

 

[dafydd]

My point is that your keypad was created by an intelligent creator known as a human. This is a fact, I can't see any other way that keyboards could have come to exist.

All penguins are black and white
Old films are black and white
Therefore some penguins are old films.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's apply a little logic:
It has been said here that: (A) Existence requires an intelligent basis.
OK, let's test that statement.
We have existence, hence because of (A), we must have an intelligent basis for that existence. What is an intelligent basis? Is it something that exists? If not, then existence came from nothing. If so, because of (A), an intelligent basis requires an intelligent basis (call it IB 2). But if that intelligent basis exists, it too requires an intelligent basis (call it IB 3). But then that intelligent basis will require IB 4, etc., etc... So either existence comes from nothing or an infinite sequence of intelligent bases.
If these two alternatives make no sense, we must reject (A).
Being a rational person, I reject (A), but others (not so rational) may choose to believe in an infinite sequence of IBs or -- alternatively -- existence popping out of nothing.

Yep. Turtles all the way down.

 

[OldBloke]

Although I am an atheist, I do not agree with all the arguments used by certain atheists in this thread. In particular, some of you ignore the differences between these three types of god hypothesis:

-- ADG an absurdly detailed god, for example the traditional Christian or Muslim God. The more detail given (such as literally believing the story of creation in Genesis, and/or Noah and the flood, and/or claiming the earth is only 4000 years old) the more improbable they are. If enough detail is defined, such a god can be proved to be impossible.

-- MDG a minimally detailed god. These claims vary a bit in their evasive vagueness, such as "there's something out there". In order to call it a god at all, they have to give it some supernatural qualities, but they give it as little definition as possible, to present a small target to atheists.

-- MDCG a minimally detailed creative god. "Some kind of conscious intelligent intentional entity created the universe. We don't know much about It, but I find that easier to imagine than having no creative god at all."
This is a New Age god, rather than a traditional Biblical one. They accept Darwinian evolution, but claim a god who set up the rules of physics and evolution etc, in a way that complex life would inevitably develop.

Arguments which mention the flying spaghetti monster or unicorn pixies are valid for deriding any particular ADG ("I can think of a god who is as silly and unlikely as yours - and there's no reason to consider your ADG as more likely than my absurd one").

But that is a straw man argument when used for laughing at notions of an MDG or MDCG.

In other words you can't mention your absurd alternative "unicorn pixie" to argue with punshhh, who has been as vague and evasive as possible, instead of telling us how many arms and legs his proposed god has. Your unicorn has a horn on its nose.

Of course there are plenty of valid arguments people have given for considering punshhh's notion to be untestable and improbable - and just a pointless conjecture.

-------------------

Anybody who proposes a MDG or MDCG is wasting our time. There should be a name for that silly trick, kind of like "straw man" but the opposite - a vague man - if you make no claims at all about your proposed god (except in the case of an MDCG that it created stuff).

You don't claim that there's any point in praying to it or worshipping it. It won't judge individual souls to send them to heaven or hell. It is having no discernable effect on the earth or even on any of the visible cosmos (because it abdicated after getting things started).

In fact whether or not I believe such an undefined creator god exists, has absolutely no effect on my life, or any decisions I need to make, or on my gradually developing model of how stuff works inside our horizons of time since the big bang and visible space.

To propose that it exists for sure, or might possibly exist (or whichever of those you shift between, depending on how the argument is going and whether you're beginning to sound silly) is just a waste of bandwidth and everybody's time.

All you are saying is that a (very shy) creator god exists, but it's beyond our perception even when enhanced by available scientific instruments.


But fortunately it's visible in one way at least - to just one of us - it appears in punshhh's mind, and he can tell us it exists (though he can tell us nothing about it).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Although I am an atheist, I do not agree with all the arguments used by certain atheists in this thread. In particular, some of you ignore the differences between these three types of god hypothesis:

-- ADG an absurdly detailed god, for example the traditional Christian or Muslim God. The more detail given (such as literally believing the story of creation in Genesis, and/or Noah and the flood, and/or claiming the earth is only 4000 years old) the more improbable they are. If enough detail is defined, such a god can be proved to be impossible.

-- MDG a minimally detailed god. These claims vary a bit in their evasive vagueness, such as "there's something out there". In order to call it a god at all, they have to give it some supernatural qualities, but they give it as little definition as possible, to present a small target to atheists.

-- MDCG a minimally detailed creative god. "Some kind of conscious intelligent intentional entity created the universe. We don't know much about It, but I find that easier to imagine than having no creative god at all."
This is a New Age god, rather than a traditional Biblical one. They accept Darwinian evolution, but claim a god who set up the rules of physics and evolution etc, in a way that complex life would inevitably develop.

I fail to see any difference between these three hypotheses that differs from, for example, the difference between Christians and ancestor worshipers. These are simply different myths but just myths nonetheless. How is a different myth a different hypothesis?

Arguments which mention the flying spaghetti monster or unicorn pixies are valid for deriding any particular ADG ("I can think of a god who is as silly and unlikely as yours - and there's no reason to consider your ADG as more likely than my absurd one").

But that is a straw man argument when used for laughing at notions of an MDG or MDCG.

In other words you can't mention your absurd alternative "unicorn pixie" to argue with punshhh, who has been as vague and evasive as possible, instead of telling us how many arms and legs his proposed god has. Your unicorn has a horn on its nose.

Of course there are plenty of valid arguments people have given for considering punshhh's notion to be untestable and improbable - and just a pointless conjecture.

You sooo miss the point here about the FSM. The point of the FSM has nothing to do with a straw man about theists' arguments. The point is, when there is no evidence, any myth will suffice. The theist argument is, their god exists and they don't need evidence to confirm that. All the FSM and invisible pink unicorns or garage dragons are are illustrations of the the hollowness of the "don't need evidence" argument. And that is hardly a straw man.

You don't claim that there's any point in praying to it or worshipping it. It won't judge individual souls to send them to heaven or hell. It is having no discernable effect on the earth or even on any of the visible cosmos (because it abdicated after getting things started).

In fact whether or not I believe such an undefined creator god exists, has absolutely no effect on my life, or any decisions I need to make, or on my gradually developing model of how stuff works inside our horizons of time since the big bang and visible space.

To propose that it exists for sure, or might possibly exist (or whichever of those you shift between, depending on how the argument is going and whether you're beginning to sound silly) is just a waste of bandwidth and everybody's time.

All you are saying is that a (very shy) creator god exists, but it's beyond our perception even when enhanced by available scientific instruments.


But fortunately it's visible in one way at least - to just one of us - it appears in punshhh's mind, and he can tell us it exists (though he can tell us nothing about it).

I don't know exactly what's in anyone's mind but my own. But it would appear by this bit of rambling that you might be trying to describe a Deist God. The way I see that is an attempt to move the goal post off the playing field as each god myth is shown to be a myth. A Deist god is also an irrelevant god.


I think you need to refine your definitions here of "hypothesis". You aren't using the same one I use.

 

[Malerin]

A theist could easily say there is a biochemical and theistic foundation for spiritual experience. They are not mutually exclusive.

True, but the former makes the latter unnecessary.

Not really. There are two questions that arise when dealing with subjective spiritual experience: how the experiences happen, and why the experiences happen. A theist could be quite comfortable with the "how" explanation (neurological processes, etc.), but prefer the theistic explantion for "why" such experiences exist at all.

This also applies to cosmology. We have some idea now of how the universe formed, but not why there should be something rather than nothing. Or why a highly improbable universe with life exists, rather than a much more probable lifeless universe consisting of just, say, hydrogren atoms. Again, theism could rationally be the preferred theory.

Finally, a theist could be completely satisfied with the scientific explanation for religious experience and still believe in a god because religion and science occupy two different domains. Or, as the National Academy of Sciences put it:

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.

Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

You arbitrarily favor materialism over immaterialism without any evidence for the former.

Given the choice between

1. an explanation which fully explains a phenomenon without neeeding to postulate an entity for which there is no physical evidence, and

2. an explanation which offers no extra explanatory power but which does require such an entity

I favour (1), yes. That is not an arbitrary choice because (1) is the most parsimonious, and therefore the most rational, explanation.

No phenomena will ever be fully explained because we can never know what phenomena actually are. Is seeing a result of photons striking our retina or a bit of code in a matrix or a part of an elaborate dream we're all sharing?

Again here, you assume a materialistic view of reality. What is this assumption based on? Evidence from your senses. What other evidence do you have? However, this sensory evidence is equally compatible with an infinite number of models of reality. To assume one model over another is simply a leap of faith. A theist could just as easily (rationally, you may say) assume her sensory evidence corresponds to an idealisic reality. If reality is idealistic (everything is a projection of God's mind), then theism has is the more explanatory theory.

The assumption that reality is materialistic is so embedded in people here, many can't step back and see how it underpins their whole belief system about the world, and so they can't question it. It's like the old "here there be dragons" part of a map.

For example, I do not believe that volcanic eruptions are caused by volcano gods but by hot magma being forced up from deep below the earth's surface by purely physical processes. You could point out that this and the volcano god explanation are not mutually exclusive because those physical processes could be the way the volcano god expresses his displeasure, and you would be right. But I do not consider that possibility sufficiently likely for it to be worth continuing to sacrifice the odd virgin to keep him sweet.

Do you believe volcanoes would continue to exist if all consciousness in the universe disappeared? If so, what is your evidence for this belief?

 

[OldBloke]

Skeptic Ginger;7257924]I fail to see any difference between these three hypotheses...

In the first part of my post, I was just trying to point out that the more they reduce the amount of detail they claim to know about their proposed god, the less vulnerable they are to using FSM as a way to ridicule them. They can claim it's a straw man attack, as they don't have as many absurd details as FSM or the traditional religions.

I don't know exactly what's in anyone's mind but my own. But it would appear by this bit of rambling that you might be trying to describe a Deist God. The way I see that is an attempt to move the goal post off the playing field as each god myth is shown to be a myth. A Deist god is also an irrelevant god.

I think you need to refine your definitions here of "hypothesis". You aren't using the same one I use.

I agree completely that deists such as punschhh are constantly moving the goal posts. Their proposed god is always conveniently just beyond our visible horizon. He used to be in Heaven, just above the sky. Now he's before the big bang.

And I agree that his kind of deist god is irrelevant. That's what i was trying to say. My last paragraph was sarcastic of course.

I don't disagree with anything you or other atheists have written in this thread - except my note that FSM is not such an effective attack on the vaguest and most evasive of the deists.

 

[punshhh]

Which is irrelevant.

How could a keyboard possibly have come into existence other than by being created by an intelligent entity?

I am surprised that you are taking part here Argent, as I am not actually arguing for anything. I am merely pointing out that a rational person can seriously consider that intelligent creators may have a part to play in existence.
The staunch materialists arguing with my position are just going to go around in circles, until they realise that their precious material(matter) is composed of nothing and appears to come out of nothing.

It should be quite entartaining

 

[punshhh]

The difference is that the materialist view can simply end with "we don't know" or "we don't know yet." It's rare for a deist view to end that way, and that's where calls for evidence start to happen, and where the hand-waving begins.

Ok I will state it now;

I really really don't have a clue what the basis for existence is and neither does anyone else.

 

[punshhh]

Clearly in your confirmation bias quest you failed to consider the evidence in the link I posted, Here's the direct link: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices . Or was it over your head? Let me sum it up for you. Life lacks some very specific characteristics of being designed.


Nor does the Universe have characteristics of being designed. You have nothing. You have a failed gap god hypothesis and nothing more.

This argument can only be applied to the ADG God, as oldbloke pointed out.

 

[punshhh]

If we're going to have something spring from nothing, your position is that it's more likely to be a fully-formed being capable of creating universes, mine is that it's more likely to be a collection of sub-atomic particles.




Of the two options outlined above, I really don't consider the probabilities to be equal.

You can substitute "subatomic particles" for "creator god", here for no one actually knows what a sub atomic particle is. They only know what it appears to be.

 

[punshhh]

I give up. Did your "intelligent creator" spring from nothing?

It evolved naturally through natural processes.

No it isn't. In one case you have evidence and an answer still being explored and in the other you invoke 'magic' as the explanation.

I see no evidence of what energy(and therefore matter) is, when ever I ask materialists they avoid the issue or say its nonsense even to ask.

 

[punshhh]

Although I am an atheist, I do not agree with all the arguments used by certain atheists in this thread. In particular, some of you ignore the differences between these three types of god hypothesis:

-- ADG an absurdly detailed god, for example the traditional Christian or Muslim God. The more detail given (such as literally believing the story of creation in Genesis, and/or Noah and the flood, and/or claiming the earth is only 4000 years old) the more improbable they are. If enough detail is defined, such a god can be proved to be impossible.

-- MDG a minimally detailed god. These claims vary a bit in their evasive vagueness, such as "there's something out there". In order to call it a god at all, they have to give it some supernatural qualities, but they give it as little definition as possible, to present a small target to atheists.

-- MDCG a minimally detailed creative god. "Some kind of conscious intelligent intentional entity created the universe. We don't know much about It, but I find that easier to imagine than having no creative god at all."
This is a New Age god, rather than a traditional Biblical one. They accept Darwinian evolution, but claim a god who set up the rules of physics and evolution etc, in a way that complex life would inevitably develop.

Arguments which mention the flying spaghetti monster or unicorn pixies are valid for deriding any particular ADG ("I can think of a god who is as silly and unlikely as yours - and there's no reason to consider your ADG as more likely than my absurd one").

But that is a straw man argument when used for laughing at notions of an MDG or MDCG.

In other words you can't mention your absurd alternative "unicorn pixie" to argue with punshhh, who has been as vague and evasive as possible, instead of telling us how many arms and legs his proposed god has. Your unicorn has a horn on its nose.

Of course there are plenty of valid arguments people have given for considering punshhh's notion to be untestable and improbable - and just a pointless conjecture.

-------------------

Anybody who proposes a MDG or MDCG is wasting our time. There should be a name for that silly trick, kind of like "straw man" but the opposite - a vague man - if you make no claims at all about your proposed god (except in the case of an MDCG that it created stuff).

You don't claim that there's any point in praying to it or worshipping it. It won't judge individual souls to send them to heaven or hell. It is having no discernable effect on the earth or even on any of the visible cosmos (because it abdicated after getting things started).

In fact whether or not I believe such an undefined creator god exists, has absolutely no effect on my life, or any decisions I need to make, or on my gradually developing model of how stuff works inside our horizons of time since the big bang and visible space.

To propose that it exists for sure, or might possibly exist (or whichever of those you shift between, depending on how the argument is going and whether you're beginning to sound silly) is just a waste of bandwidth and everybody's time.

All you are saying is that a (very shy) creator god exists, but it's beyond our perception even when enhanced by available scientific instruments.


But fortunately it's visible in one way at least - to just one of us - it appears in punshhh's mind, and he can tell us it exists (though he can tell us nothing about it).

Nicely put,
although I do not move goal posts and I am happy to define the god I am referring to in this thread precisely.

 

[punshhh]

I.E. indescribable.

God == Energy

There, that fixed it!

Energy is a God of the gaps.