Atheist bored at work. Feel free to ask questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Russell_SA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How is this not a “God of the Gaps” argument. You still have no way to demonstrate that the deity’s realm or that deities exist at all. The deity concept is, currently, indistinguishable from an imagined idea. We have no way of determining the difference at this point. How can you possibly demonstrate the difference between the two? Imagining a being that can do everything is a solution to everything that we currently do not understand about our experienced reality. But you have no way yet of determining if your imagined idea actually exists in reality or not.
 
How is this not a “God of the Gaps” argument. You still have no way to demonstrate that the deity’s realm or that deities exist at all.
 
I’ll use my mathematical pi example again. If person A uses pi to the 5th decimal place to solve their problem and, also, can not distinguish a difference in results for using pi beyond the 5th decimal place, did they solve the problem to you since they didn’t use the absolute value of infinity of pi? If all we can understand as “good”, “bad”, and all other subjective terms is pi to the 5th decimal place, then that becomes the current best solution to the problem until WE become convinced of why a value of pi at the 6th or any other further value is better. We are all the arbiter of what is the “good” in our reality since we can only understand the “good” by what we have been convinced of what is “good”. However, since we are all part of the human experience, we can have conversations with each other for where the universal overlaps of “good” are. That is where we start having grounding foundations of “good” aka: Human Wellbeing. Such as basic concepts of Life is preferable to Death, Health is preferable to Sickness, etc. We can argue over whether eating apples is better than eating pears for nutrition but it is universally bad, objectively bad, to drink battery acid; in reference to nutrition for Human Wellbeing. This is all grounded in a reality that we all experience and have access to the data. Not everyone has access to your deity and not everyone would be convinced that referencing a deity, once demonstrated to be there, should be the reference point for the “good” as well. Since we can not demonstrate that the deity is any different than an imagined idea of a deity or literary character, it’s irrelevant at this point. It’s no different than claiming your friend in the next town over, than no one ever meets, is your reference for X. That might be fine for you, but to everyone else, we are not justified in using your reference point since that person is no different than an imaginary friend to us.
 
So how is “no explanation is necessary” any different than what I wrote for my understanding of the difference between Belief, Hope, and Faith?
Belief - understanding than one outcome will occur from all known possible outcomes. IE: a value of 1-6 will be the result of rolling a 1d6 dice.
Hope - the desire for a specific possible outcome out of all possible outcomes. IE: desiring the dice to roll a 6 since you bet that a 6 will be the result of a 1d6 dice roll.
Faith - the desire for a specific outcome that has not been demonstrated to actually be a possible outcome. IE: desiring the dice to roll a 7 on a 1d6 dice roll.

Faith is the excuse people use for their beliefs when they have not good reason to hold that belief. If you have a good reason, you don’t need faith. It’s just belief.
 
Your deity may have a reason that is good enough for it, but that still makes your deity appear in reality as no different than not being there at all. Once we can demonstrate that the deity is there, that is the point when we are justified in implementing that information into the understanding of reality. Not a second before. Otherwise any imagined idea becomes reality.
Ex: Einstein mathematically concluded that Gravity Waves should exist, so we started looking for them but never found them till 2015. Were we justified in believing that Gravity Waves existed in reality before 2015, even though Einstein logically concluded that they should be there? No, No we were not. We had to demonstrate that they were there some how. We can be logically correct and still factually wrong. Reality is the reference point of what is justified, not our logical reasoning. We are very good at inference and induction, but we have to have a way to test our logical conclusions. We can’t just assume that it is the case without testing it. The more our models continue to make accurate predictions, the more justified we are in those logical conclusions. That is how we are able to send probes to orbiting bodies in space since we have tested our current understanding of reality. Mathematics is just our best logical modeling of reality, but it’s reality that tells us that our mathematical equation is correct or not. Apply this to the idea of deity and see why we can not be justified in currently acting as if it is there. It is currently indistinguishable from an imagined idea. We can not tell a difference yet. Once we can, that is when we are justified in our current understanding about reality. That is all. Atheists are not ignoring the religious person’s claims of evidence. We are just stating that the evidence is not enough for us to be able to tell the difference between a claim that the supernatural exists and the supernatural actually existing.
 
Last edited:
We all know what it is like to be in a relationship with someone that we can put questions to. Since your deity appears to not want a relationship with certain people, we can not ask that deity anything at all. So it appears to us as just not being there at all. We can all see the girl across the room and walk up to her to say hi before knowing anything at all about her character or her knowing our character. We can not do this apparently with your deity. Since you claim that your deity knows our character and is currently ducking all our attempts to discover if it is even real, it’s no different than the girl at the party ducking out when we show up. She could just not exist and it would be no different to us that she does actually exist. We can’t have a relationship with someone that acts like that or even know they exist. So again, your deity either does not exist or is choosing to not reveal itself to us. Either way, not our problem.
 
Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It is the rejection of someone else’s claim for why they believe there is a supernatural anything.
Ex: I tell you that I met a fairy yesterday. You don’t believe me based on my bad presentation and reasons for why I met bob yesterday. Did you make any statement about the existence of fairies? No, no you did not. I may have actually met a fairy yesterday, I just wasn’t able to convince you that event actually happened.

However, I personally do not believe that the supernatural exists since there is no good reason for me yet to do so.

As to your question about “probability”. You can not make probability statements about the supernatural at all since it is no different than an imagined idea. We know the probability of batters at bat to hit the ball because we have actual data on them performing that act. Now find the probability of someone hitting the ball that comes across as no different than not existing at all for their batting average.
 
Last edited:
We all know what it is like to see someone across the room and engage them in conversation. At this point though, someone’s deity at the party is coming across as ducking out of the party as soon as we arrive or does not exist at all. We can not have a relationship with someone that does not exist or is coming across as not existing to us. Either way, it is not our problem since we can not make this person reveal themselves to us. If they are avoiding us because of what they know about us, then again, not our problem since we can only change for the people we have a relationship with. Try changing your approach to someone in say Australia when you have no way of contacting them, but they have a way of contacting you. You have no idea what they want you do to till they contact you. Even after their friends tell you what to do to change, and you do that, and that Australian still will not establish contact; how is this becoming our problem? It’s your Australian choosing to not contact us directly, so they are just coming across as a made up friend of yours.
 
Einstein mathematically concluded that Gravity Waves should exist, so we started looking for them but never found them till 2015. Were we justified in believing that Gravity Waves existed in reality before 2015, even though Einstein logically concluded that they should be there? No, No we were not. We had to demonstrate that they were there some how. We can be logically correct and still factually wrong. Reality is the reference point of what is justified, not our logical reasoning. We are very good at inference and induction, but we have to have a way to test our logical conclusions. We can’t just assume that it is the case without testing it. The more our models continue to make accurate predictions, the more justified we are in those logical conclusions. That is how we are able to send probes to orbiting bodies in space since we have tested our current understanding of reality. Mathematics is just our best logical modeling of reality, but it’s reality that tells us that our mathematical equation is correct or not. Apply this to the idea of deity and see why we can not be justified in currently acting as if it is there. It is currently indistinguishable from an imagined idea. We can not tell a difference yet. Once we can, that is when we are justified in our current understanding about reality. That is all. Atheists are not ignoring the religious person’s claims of evidence. We are just stating that the evidence is not enough for us to be able to tell the difference between a claim that the supernatural exists and the supernatural actually existing.
 
Last edited:
I’m have no idea what happened before our universe existed. No one does. Reasoning an explanation will help us start to look for the solution, but a reasoned solution that can not be demonstrated is not enough to justify that reason to be the actual reason. We have to be able to have predictable models, falsify-ability of those models, etc. Your solution of a deity that can do anything will answer every question you don’t have an answer to, but how is that just not a God of the Gaps argument? Could be pixies too that destroyed themselves to create this universe. They always existed up till they got bored and decided to destroy themselves to create this universe. You need to demonstrate your claim is any different than every other imagined and to be imagined idea out there. Otherwise it’s just another story our culture invented.
Einstein mathematically concluded that Gravity Waves should exist, so we started looking for them but never found them till 2015. Were we justified in believing that Gravity Waves existed in reality before 2015, even though Einstein logically concluded that they should be there? No, No we were not. We had to demonstrate that they were there some how. We can be logically correct and still factually wrong. Reality is the reference point of what is justified, not our logical reasoning. We are very good at inference and induction, but we have to have a way to test our logical conclusions. We can’t just assume that it is the case without testing it. The more our models continue to make accurate predictions, the more justified we are in those logical conclusions. That is how we are able to send probes to orbiting bodies in space since we have tested our current understanding of reality. Mathematics is just our best logical modeling of reality, but it’s reality that tells us that our mathematical equation is correct or not. Apply this to the idea of deity and see why we can not be justified in currently acting as if it is there. It is currently indistinguishable from an imagined idea. We can not tell a difference yet. Once we can, that is when we are justified in our current understanding about reality. That is all. Atheists are not ignoring the religious person’s claims of evidence. We are just stating that the evidence is not enough for us to be able to tell the difference between a claim that the supernatural exists and the supernatural actually existing.
 
Last edited:
Your definitions are wrong. Atheism is the rejection of the existence of God, agnosticism means you aren’t sure. There is no such thing as agnostic/gnostic theism or atheism.
 
Nope, they just show me who they are and the quality of people in their lives that taught them to think this way. I do sing in the choir of my local church though for the joy of musical practice. They still have no idea I’m an atheist after 5 years of being there since there really is no significant difference between genuinely good people.
 
I have no problem with a God of the Gaps since the gaps are infinite.
 
I was in the navy for 6 years. So no foxholes, but on a submarine with no practical way of escape unless we bottom out in 100ft of water. I wanted educational benefits, no PTSD, non-violent training, and an engineering back ground that would easily transition to the civilian sector. I wish there was a non-violent equivalent of the military for educational support like a civil works group or something, but apparently we have to be willing to kill a complete stranger just to pay for college in this country.
 
Now I know how you use those terms and you understand how I use those terms. I don’t care if you or I use them correctly as long as we both understand what each person is talking about. Having an argument over who’s definition is correct is irrelevant to me and shows me that you want to side step the point made with the distraction of a separate conversation. I’ll take this as you have nothing to add or address in what I stated and want to go talk about something else. Sorry, not interested in your next topic you presented. Please address what I presented and lets go from there.
 
Last edited:
That’s not what I see as the problem of “god of the gaps”. We will always have areas where we don’t have justified belief about something. But inserting a deity as the solution to that gap is not a justified response. It’s just creating mystery to solve a mystery. The more honest answer is “We don’t know.” This continues to direct us to where we need to keep looking for justified answers instead of made up answers.
 
Pat Tillman - Patrick Daniel Tillman (November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004) was a professional American football player in the National Football League (NFL) who left his sports career and enlisted in the United States Army in June 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and subsequent death, were the subject of much media attention.
Tillman was the first professional football player to be killed in combat since Bob Kalsu, who died in the Vietnam War in 1970. Tillman was posthumously promoted from specialist to corporal. He also received posthumous Silver Star and Purple Heart medals.

 
We may not know but we can reasonable surmise. It comes down to what we will accept as evidence. Some people see the elegance of nature and it is enough to support belief in a creating intelligence. Others, such as yourself, do not. But do you believe it is random and impersonal? That personhood evolved from something impersonal., intelligence from something unintelligent? That makes sense to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top