What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[dafydd]

Digest these words;

"My point in this thread was very simple and I stated it in a few sentences.

The rest of the thread has been a process of skeptics trying to assert something they are not in a position to assert. Namely that there are no gods and thats its irrational to consider their existence."

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?

It is irrational to consider their existence,this has been going on for thousands of years and not one shred of evidence. It's about time mankind lost these primitive superstitions. Gods are superfluous.

 

[dafydd]

Which you are promoting as if it was conclusive....

Exactly.

 

[dafydd]

I wasn't, it was the skeptics who hyped it up by taking pot shots at it.

You said this.


'Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.'

Sounds like more than a 'leaning' to me.

 

[Larechar]

You said this.


'Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.'

Sounds like more than a 'leaning' to me.

Exactly.

 

[Beth]

If you read that as "the fine tuning argument as taken to imply a creator god", it makes much more sense in the context of what this thread is about. If read that way, then laca isn't calling Hawking feeble-minded, since the view that "fine tuning" implies a creator god - also known as the watchmaker argument - is not Hawking's position.

I understand and agree with what you are saying about Hawking's position. I don't think the fine-tuning argument implies a creator god. Similarly lack of evidence does not imply that no gods exist. Such reasoning should not be regarded as convincing, but it does provide support for the rational consideration of the hypotheses.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that Dr. Stephen Hawking was convinced by the fine-tuning argument. Maybe you could point me to the source of this?

I don't think he is convinced. My understanding is that he is currently agnostic with regard to a creator god such as Punshhh has hypothesized. My point was that if you consider it irrational or feeble-minded to consider the fine-tuning argument plausible, Dr. Hawking would be included in that category.

 

[punshhh]

You said this.


'Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.'

Sounds like more than a 'leaning' to me.

Your confusing the issue as usual, this quote is in reference to intelligent creators for which I have irrefutable evidence, namely humans.

Don't you ever listen or address any point in these discussions? if your not a troll your something similar.

 

[dafydd]

Your confusing the issue as usual, this quote is in reference to intelligent creators for which I have irrefutable evidence, namely humans.

Don't you ever listen or address any point in these discussions? if your not a troll your something similar.

You used that to prove that there were assembler gods with a small g. We all know that is not the case. Do try to keep up with your own posts. It's you're something similar,by the way.

 

[GeeMack]

Your confusing the issue as usual, this quote is in reference to intelligent creators for which I have irrefutable evidence, namely humans.

But it seems you're attempting to use the existence of humans as support for this claim...

[...] I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

Or have you abandoned that unsupportable claim?

 

[Pup]

Digest these words;

"My point in this thread was very simple and I stated it in a few sentences.

The rest of the thread has been a process of skeptics trying to assert something they are not in a position to assert. Namely that there are no gods and thats its irrational to consider their existence."

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion that its irrational to consider the existence of gods?

I think the problem is with the word "consider."

There's the strong atheist position that there are no gods. Then there's the weak atheist position that there's no evidence of gods. In the weak atheist position, it's rational to include the possibility there are gods, since they haven't been disproven, but not rational to consider them any further, because there's no evidence, so there's nothing to consider. It would be pointless.

So once one gets beyond the weak atheist position, and proposes considering gods, there needs to be some evidence, or a way to propose and reject hypotheses, or some other way to start approaching their attributes. Otherwise one might as well be writing fantasy and making up any random thing.

It's this lack of evidence or testable hypotheses or anything similar, that makes spending time considering an unknowable topic irrational, since there's no way to tell if you're making progress or learning anything that's true. Unless the goal is simply entertainment, but that's different.

 

[dafydd]

I think the problem is with the word "consider."

There's the strong atheist position that there are no gods. Then there's the weak atheist position that there's no evidence of gods. In the weak atheist position, it's rational to include the possibility there are gods, since they haven't been disproven, but not rational to consider them any further, because there's no evidence, so there's nothing to consider. It would be pointless.

So once one gets beyond the weak atheist position, and proposes considering gods, there needs to be some evidence, or a way to propose and reject hypotheses, or some other way to start approaching their attributes. Otherwise one might as well be writing fantasy and making up any random thing.

It's this lack of evidence or testable hypotheses or anything similar, that makes spending time considering an unknowable topic irrational, since there's no way to tell if you're making progress or learning anything that's true. Unless the goal is simply entertainment, but that's different.

I am a skeptical atheist.


Skeptic, 1580s, "member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view"

If somebody shows me cast iron evidence of the existence of a god,then I will believe. No semantics,no sophistry,no complex theological arguments. It's very simple as far as I am concerned.

 

[Pup]

If somebody shows me cast iron evidence of the existence of a god,then I will believe. No semantics,no sophistry,no complex theological arguments. It's very simple as far as I am concerned.

I like the term "skeptical atheist." I agree.

I'm not really sure whether the strong atheist position requires unchanging belief, or if there are two kinds: I know there is no god and will continue to hold that belief regardless vs. I know there is no god, but if extraordinary evidence came to light that proved I was wrong, I'd change my mind.

Can one hold the latter position and still be a strong atheist or does that automatically define one as a weak atheist?

"Skeptical atheist" makes it clearer.

 

[punshhh]

It's irrational to apply any more consideration to the existence of anything for which there is no evidence (your "intelligent creator" god in this case) than to the existence of any other thing with an equally complete lack of evidence (the Tooth Fairy, invisible pink unicorns, Santa Claus, Russell's teapot, etc.).

We may have to disagree on this issue.
I understand your point and wether or not I have evidence will depend on defining the meaning of evidence.

I have something though, an observation of things being created by intelligent creators in nature. Perhaps what I regard as evidence is the principle itself of;

intelligence in nature, which there is evidence of,
creative activity, which we have evidence of
and intelligent creative activity, which we have evidence of in nature.

I accept that this does not constitute evidence for the existence of creator gods. However it is evidence of intelligent manipulation of the fabric of existence in nature.

Infact this is the only attribute I have given to this notional god, that it is whatever it is that performs intelligent manipulation of the fabric of existence in nature.

From my observation it is only natural to consider that nature has produced other intelligent manipulators of the fabric of existence of which we are not aware and of unknown capabilities.

 

[punshhh]

I think the problem is with the word "consider."

There's the strong atheist position that there are no gods. Then there's the weak atheist position that there's no evidence of gods. In the weak atheist position, it's rational to include the possibility there are gods, since they haven't been disproven, but not rational to consider them any further, because there's no evidence, so there's nothing to consider. It would be pointless.

So once one gets beyond the weak atheist position, and proposes considering gods, there needs to be some evidence, or a way to propose and reject hypotheses, or some other way to start approaching their attributes. Otherwise one might as well be writing fantasy and making up any random thing.

It's this lack of evidence or testable hypotheses or anything similar, that makes spending time considering an unknowable topic irrational, since there's no way to tell if you're making progress or learning anything that's true. Unless the goal is simply entertainment, but that's different.

Yes I see, there needs to be strong evidence of the thing in question before it will even be considered.

Well like I stated in my first post to Pixy on this forum, "its not going to happen".
I think I also quoted an ancient chinese proverb;

"man stands for long time with mouth open before fried duck flies in!"

 

[laca]

We may have to disagree on this issue.
I understand your point and wether or not I have evidence will depend on defining the meaning of evidence.

I have something though, an observation of things being created by intelligent creators in nature. Perhaps what I regard as evidence is the principle itself of;

intelligence in nature, which there is evidence of,
creative activity, which we have evidence of
and intelligent creative activity, which we have evidence of in nature.

I accept that this does not constitute evidence for the existence of creator gods. However it is evidence of intelligent manipulation of the fabric of existence in nature.

Sigh... punshhh, it is you who cannot accept naturalistic explanations for our existence. Your proposed "creative activity" does not explain how the "fabric of existence" came into being. Perhaps it came from beyond the event horizon of the formless?

Anyhow, you're arguing something totally uninteresting. Yes, we know matter and energy can be manipulated in many ways. So what? How do you figure that solves your existential questions?

Infact this is the only attribute I have given to this notional god, that it is whatever it is that performs intelligent manipulation of the fabric of existence in nature.

Again, that is not helping you in any way.

From my observation it is only natural to consider that nature has produced other intelligent manipulators of the fabric of existence of which we are not aware and of unknown capabilities.

Again, you're talking nonsense, adding unnecessary entities and avoiding the very issue you're having with the naturalistic explanations. Let's say we accept these "intelligent manipulators". Now, where did they come from? No, wait, where did the "fabric of existence" come from? See, your "solution" doesn't help a bit, it just complicates things further.

 

[laca]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Pup]

I have something though, an observation of things being created by intelligent creators in nature. Perhaps what I regard as evidence is the principle itself of;

intelligence in nature, which there is evidence of,
creative activity, which we have evidence of
and intelligent creative activity, which we have evidence of in nature.

One can also observe non-intelligent processes organizing random things into recognizable regular patterns, from crystals to tornadoes. Thus, there's just as much evidence that complex, organized things can arise through unguided processes without the need of intelligent creators.

 

[dafydd]

From my observation it is only natural to consider that nature has produced other intelligent manipulators of the fabric of existence of which we are not aware and of unknown capabilities.

It's not natural,it's just you fantasizing,fuelled by your lack of knowledge.

 

[excaza]

This is an extraordinarily convoluted method of avoiding using the word 'god'

 

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by punshhh
Have you read the whole thread?

Am I insane?

Mega-LOL!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand and agree with what you are saying about Hawking's position. I don't think the fine-tuning argument implies a creator god. Similarly lack of evidence does not imply that no gods exist. Such reasoning should not be regarded as convincing, but it does provide support for the rational consideration of the hypotheses.



I don't think he is convinced. My understanding is that he is currently agnostic with regard to a creator god such as Punshhh has hypothesized. My point was that if you consider it irrational or feeble-minded to consider the fine-tuning argument plausible, Dr. Hawking would be included in that category.

Well here is his most recent position in his own words:

Why God Did Not Create the Universe - There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required; By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Just because he doesn't claim confrontationally that there is no god doesn't mean he is agnostic. He might be. But I read more atheism in this than agnosticism.