What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[punshhh]

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.

Unfortunately this problem arrises whatever explanation is suggested, other than an infinite timespace. Which throws up some other problems.

 

[punshhh]

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








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.





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

Well said,

the atheists are all jumping up and down claiming that creator Gods have no leg to stand on. Without realising that the matter their standing on is just empty space composed of nothing, floating in an endless void.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

They know that simpler and more fundamental particles have continually been found. You're trying to equate spontaneous generation of a complex intelligent powerful being with that of the simplest item possible.

 

[marplots]

Well said,

the atheists are all jumping up and down claiming that creator Gods have no leg to stand on. Without realising that the matter their standing on is just empty space composed of nothing, floating in an endless void.

Good point, and I'm a staunch materialist. I'd like to point out that I am standing on a leg though. Is it the material one or the other one?

 

[PixyMisa]

Well said,

the atheists are all jumping up and down claiming that creator Gods have no leg to stand on. Without realising that the matter their standing on is just empty space composed of nothing, floating in an endless void.

Except not. You honestly haven't paid any attention to anything anyone has said, ever, have you?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

It's not an explanation. It's merely an assertion - and an incoherent one at that.

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.

Wrong question.

Or why a highly improbable universe with life exists, rather than a much more probable lifeless universe consisting of just, say, hydrogren atoms.

Unfounded assumption.

Again, theism could rationally be the preferred theory.

Nope. It's neither rational nor a 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

What a load of pathetic self-serving claptrap.

No phenomena will ever be fully explained because we can never know what phenomena actually are.

Wrong question.

Again here, you assume a materialistic view of reality. What is this assumption based on?

It's not an assumption.

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.

Wrong.

Completely wrong.

We can't know what things are, only what they do. So materialism stops asking what things are.

Religion specifically and deliberately only asks questions that make no sense.

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

Volcanoes are physical processes. Consciousness is a physical process. The two are not interdependent. You work it out.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Wrong question.

 

[PixyMisa]

It evolved naturally through natural processes.

 

[DC]

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.

and you think a made up story from the bronze age is an answer as to why there is something rather than nothing?

theology is as much an answer as claiming gozilla farted us into existence.
it has no supporting evidence at all.

theology is no answer to the why we are rather than not. it is a wild guess with a wild story around it that has been disproven already. how can that be an answer?

 

[3point14]

I'm not claiming that gods exist, I'm claiming that a rational person can arrive at the position that intelligent creators may be involved in creating existence as we know it.

Please suggest an alternative theory or explanation of the basis of our existence?

I've told you. The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. I myself am hoping that we can stave off the coming of the great white hanky* for as long as possible.

I think that perhaps a wishful person can arrive at the conclusion you describe. What you posit is an incredibly complex entity that you have absolutely no definition for other than 'created the universe'. You have no explaination for where it came from, what it's doing, why it's here or how it was created. The sum total of your theory is that out there somewhere is some thinking being that created the universe. Your evidence for this is, as far as I can understand it, that the universe exists and that the credulous get 'funny feelings'. Well, colour me grumpy if I don't get right on that train and agree that that's enough evidence to posit the existence of an almost impossibly complex entity, because it's not.





*RIP DNA

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

It is only an assumption as far as being shorthand for "all we can detect".

If you want to talk about a universe that happens to be a matrix-style simulation, a butterfly's dream or a "projection in the mind of God" or whatever else - but happens to be functionally no different from a materialistic one; then you're talking about something which you by definition cannot know anything about. As mentally stimulating as that sort of thing can be, it's adding exactly nothing to our explanatory framework. Moreover, by very definition, anything said about it by anyone, anytime, will be horse manure since nobody can - again, by definition - know anything about.

Or you have to do the legwork and show how an idealistic model of reality explains everything a materialistic one does, plus some more. All due respect, attempts as this, yours included, thus far have been unconvincing.

That's where you're wrong here:

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.

(My bold) - you're simply using the wrong word here. It cannot be more explanatory if there's nothing to explain. So until you show the specific difference between your idealistic universe and what, say, the standard model posits, there's no need or room for an additional explanation.

From over here it sounds like you're saying that there are large swathes of unknowns in the world and therefore lots of room for idealism. That may be true, but if you insist on spending your energy exactly in the unknown, then you're simply engaging in fruitless conjecture.

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

That they appear to have functioned before consciousness in the universe appeared. That they otherwise function when noone's looking.

If you modified this statement to something like "Would it matter if there were volcanoes if there were no intelligent life around to observe them?" many would have less objections. I don't see the difference between your statement and that one?

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

Which is simply bare assertion. It is not rational nor supported by the evidence.

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.

Come to that, we have no idea whether or not there is - or even needs to be - a "why". It's just more nonsense on the part of theists.

Or why a highly improbable universe with life exists, rather than a much more probable lifeless universe consisting of just, say, hydrogren atoms.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Bare assertion fallacy, as well, since we don't actually know that it's possible for the universe's "numbers" to be any different than they are. Or, if it is possible, how likely it is.

Again, theism could rationally be the preferred theory.

It could. But only if we had more evidence in its favor.

We don't. So it isn't.

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.

True.

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.

So?

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?

Does it matter?

(HINT: No. Whether or not we are living in the Matrix has no bearing on the rationality of materialism or atheism.)

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?

The lack of evidence for other systems.

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.

No. It's a simple application of Occam's razor.

A theist could just as easily (rationally, you may say)

You may. You would just be wrong.

assume her sensory evidence corresponds to an idealisic reality.

And she would be irrational to do so. There is no evidence supporting idealism.

If reality is idealistic (everything is a projection of God's mind), then theism has is the more explanatory theory.

No, it doesn't.

Even if the universe was just a projection of God's mind, materialism would possess every bit as much explanatory power as idealism - at least, in our current state of understanding. Materialism explains the way our universe works perfectly well. Idealism might, but it doesn't explain anything more, either. Not until you find actual evidence in its favor.

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

Does it matter?

(HINT: No, it doesn't. You are equivocating between ex materia and ex nihilo creation.)

I am surprised that you are taking part here Argent

Public forum.

as I am not actually arguing for anything.

Except that we understand nothing about the universe, that everything must have an intelligent creator, and so on.

 

[Malerin]

It is only an assumption as far as being shorthand for "all we can detect".

If you want to talk about a universe that happens to be a matrix-style simulation, a butterfly's dream or a "projection in the mind of God" or whatever else - but happens to be functionally no different from a materialistic one; then you're talking about something which you by definition cannot know anything about. As mentally stimulating as that sort of thing can be, it's adding exactly nothing to our explanatory framework. Moreover, by very definition, anything said about it by anyone, anytime, will be horse manure since nobody can - again, by definition - know anything about.

How is the bolded part true? Why would a theistic reality, by definition, be something we "cannot know anything about"? If reality is theistic, there is quite a bit we know about it. Divine revelation could reveal even more about reality. Do you claim to know what happens when we die?

Here's another case where the atheist viewpoint is assumed: it's assumed that when we die we cease to exist. Of course that's possible, but entirely unevidenced. If the converse is true, like would probably be the case in a theistic reality, then we stand to learn a great deal about reality after we die.

So no, it's not true "by definition" that a theistic reality would be something we "cannot know anything about". In fact, a theistic universe benefits from the possibility of knowledge bypassing the senses in the form of direct knowledge from god. In the atheistic universe, unfortunately, all we will ever have is sensory information. The latter is the best candidate for a model of reality we can never be certain of.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

I think you have a misunderstanding of what the FSM is about. It is symbolic for belief without evidence. If you can believe in [X] without evidence, how do you justify not believing in [Y] without evidence? How do you choose [X] when [Y] is an equally supportable claim?

Using Christian theists as an example, beliefs range from Bible literalists to Deists. You are conflating the point of the FSM which addresses belief without evidence to specific arguments against specific theist beliefs. The two are not exactly interchangeable.

Then there is the problem of claiming the FSM is a straw man. Since Deists believe without evidence the same as Bible literalists believe without evidence, there is no straw man there. Both ends of the theist continuum draw conclusions without evidence.

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.

There are several arguments against the existence of a Deist god. Lack of evidence, irrelevant and you can also add that if said god did not interact with the Universe, humans can be expected to have no awareness of said god.

Regardless if a Deist tries to claim evidence isn't involved in their belief therefore the FSM analogy doesn't apply, it is denial on their part, not a straw man. This is demonstrated by that last argument above. On what basis is the Deist aware of a god that doesn't interact with the Universe?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

You are making a turtles all the way down argument here. How could a god "possibly have come into existence other than by being created by an intelligent entity?"

.... 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

Round and round the mulberry bush...

Your definition of rational thinking is your problem here. You apparently don't know what it means.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Now you are arguing from ignorance.

No you cannot substitute "creator god" for subatomic particles and yes we do have more than sufficient empirical evidence to know what subatomic particles are. That we don't know everything there is to know about the particles doesn't mean we don't know anything about them.

 

[3point14]

How is the bolded part true? Why would a theistic reality, by definition, be something we "cannot know anything about"? If reality is theistic, there is quite a bit we know about it. Divine revelation could reveal even more about reality. Do you claim to know what happens when we die?

Here's another case where the atheist viewpoint is assumed: it's assumed that when we die we cease to exist. Of course that's possible, but entirely unevidenced. If the converse is true, like would probably be the case in a theistic reality, then we stand to learn a great deal about reality after we die.

So no, it's not true "by definition" that a theistic reality would be something we "cannot know anything about". In fact, a theistic universe benefits from the possibility of knowledge bypassing the senses in the form of direct knowledge from god. In the atheistic universe, unfortunately, all we will ever have is sensory information. The latter is the best candidate for a model of reality we can never be certain of.

When we die, we stop working and cease to be anything but wormfood. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


If you want to go second guessing the nature of reality, then you can't prove anything beyond the fact that you're thinking (and even that's ropey), I'll go for the pragmatic option that my senses aren't lying to me. Anything else is just pointless.

Perhaps a theistic universe would offer up more explainations (not that I think they'd be very satisfying) but the fact remains that there is zero evidence that the universe is theistic in any way. Theism, as an explaination for the existence of the universe as it just multiplies the problem.

The fact remains that any theistic explaination involves just flatly making stuff up, positing an entity based on absolutely zero observational evidence is not rational. I don't mind people believeing in fairies, that's their business, but calling it rational just because someone doesn't want to appear to be a completely irrational loony (yes, I believe theists are irrational loonies) doesn't make it so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It evolved naturally through natural processes.




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.

I highlighted the problem here. Your own lack of knowledge both about the definition of rational thinking and what we know about the quantum world is the problem. Until you bring yourself up to speed in physics, you will remain blissfully ignorant about why your Deist god speculation is an unsupportable assertoin.

 

[Pixel42]

it's assumed that when we die we cease to exist. Of course that's possible, but entirely unevidenced.

The assumption is that consciousness is generated by the brain - an assumption for which there is ample evidence - and that it therefore ceases when the brain ceases to be able to generate it, i.e. when it ceases to function upon death.

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ALInv_wzSQ

Our bodies continue to exist until they either rot away or are burned.

If you want to argue that it's possible for consciousness to exist absent a brain then you are the one who has to produce evidence of it doing so. To describe the assumption that it cannot as unevidenced is simply ridiculous.

 

[blobru]

How is the bolded part true? Why would a theistic reality, by definition, be something we "cannot know anything about"? If reality is theistic, there is quite a bit we know about it. Divine revelation could reveal even more about reality. Do you claim to know what happens when we die?

Here's another case where the atheist viewpoint is assumed: it's assumed that when we die we cease to exist. Of course that's possible, but entirely unevidenced. If the converse is true, like would probably be the case in a theistic reality, then we stand to learn a great deal about reality after we die.

So no, it's not true "by definition" that a theistic reality would be something we "cannot know anything about". In fact, a theistic universe benefits from the possibility of knowledge bypassing the senses in the form of direct knowledge from god. In the atheistic universe, unfortunately, all we will ever have is sensory information. The latter is the best candidate for a model of reality we can never be certain of.

What are your criteria for distinguishing divine revelation from religious delusion^WPal disorder* (or from just plain wishful thinking for that matter)? Could you take us through a trial case? Thanks.

*caution: this last link's a study which opens as a .pdf