L
liquidpele
Guest
hahaha… classic!
- Status
W
wanstronian
Guest
Here we go again, a theist attacking a straw man position that he has erroneously ascribed to atheism.
It makes you wonder whether they can actually read anything other than the bible…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
wanstronian
erroneously ascribed to atheism.
Wouldn’t it be the atheist position that the first living creature came into being by accident, since there was no intelligence there to design it?
So why doesn’t science have to prove that?
Or, as tonyrey says, is that more science of the gaps?
erroneously ascribed to atheism.
Wouldn’t it be the atheist position that the first living creature came into being by accident, since there was no intelligence there to design it?
So why doesn’t science have to prove that?
Or, as tonyrey says, is that more science of the gaps?
L
liquidpele
Guest
Sigh. Because science isn’t in the business of proving things. It never was. That’s why even gravity is a “theory” by name even though the evidence is immeasurable. That’s why it’s a strawman - because science never claimed it had all the gaps filled - it keeps the idea of “I don’t know” there instead of assigning the area to magic though.wanstronian
erroneously ascribed to atheism.
Wouldn’t it be the atheist position that the first living creature came into being by accident, since there was no intelligence there to design it?
So why doesn’t science have to prove that?
Or, as tonyrey says, is that more science of the gaps?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
liquidpele
Because science isn’t in the business of proving things.
Well then, I guess Intelligent Design doesn’t have to be proven either. But I thought lack of proof was why you rejected Intelligent Design.
Oh well.
Because science isn’t in the business of proving things.
Well then, I guess Intelligent Design doesn’t have to be proven either. But I thought lack of proof was why you rejected Intelligent Design.
Oh well.
L
liquidpele
Guest
No… lack of evidence, its inability to be dis-proven, and inability to make predictions are why I reject ID.liquidpele
Because science isn’t in the business of proving things.
Well then, I guess Intelligent Design doesn’t have to be proven either. But I thought lack of proof was why you rejected Intelligent Design.
Oh well.
Must we have a 3rd grade lesson on how science works?
T
tonyrey
Guest
What does the atheist use to disprove the claim that God exists? Nothing?
Is that a straw man? Or is the straw man on the other side of the fence?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You have obviously failed to read the thread: Is intelligent design a plausible theory?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t laugh too soon, lp.
I’ve got one for the agnostics. They don’t fall back on “the god of the gaps” or “science of the gaps” but…“the gap of the gaps”! 
L
liquidpele
Guest
I think we just entered an infinite loop.Don’t laugh too soon, lp.
T
tonyrey
Guest
We? I’m not an agnostic.
Anyway whichever way we go we finish up with infinity…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
liquidpele
*
Because science isn’t in the business of proving things. It never was.*
Guess I’ll have to frame that and put it on my wall as a monument to silliness!
*
Because science isn’t in the business of proving things. It never was.*
Guess I’ll have to frame that and put it on my wall as a monument to silliness!
L
liquidpele
Guest
Then put it right next to the crucifix.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Agnostics, by definition, don’t “fall back” on anything. Agnosticism, broadly speaking, refers to a position of uncertainty and doubt. Only when one is certain enough to make an assertion do they need to “fall back” on something (be it faith, science, philosophy, intuition, etc.). Of course, if one is certain enough to make an assertion pertaining to the existence of a god, they wouldn’t be agnostic.Don’t laugh too soon, lp.
I imagine that, in your little fantasy land, there is plenty of “evidence” for God, so such uncertainty would be a symptom of stupidity or willful ignorance to you. But I assure you that many agnostics, such as myself, have been around the block a couple of times; we know how believers of all stripes sell their “evidence” to unsuspecting non-believers. They’ll point at the order, beauty, and happiness in the universe, but fail to mention all of the suffering, ugliness and the fact that “order” is a subjective notion (what looks orderly to one species of animal may look chaotic to another).
I’m sorry if I come across as aggressive, but the repeated assertions that agnosticism is faith-based are really beginning to annoy me. Not everyone has to have faith in a theological/metaphysical position.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You don’t seem to realize it was a jest, not to be taken seriously. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for anyone to live in a vacuum. Agnostics have to fall back on their power of reason - amongst other things.
It is a reasonable position if the evidence for and against has been considered using one’s power of reason.
The question arises as to how we arrive at certainty about anything. About the existence of our own minds, for example.
Your presumption that I live in a “little fantasy land” implies that you know there is not plenty of “evidence” for God - which implies that you **know **there is very little, if any, evidence for God. What is the basis of your knowledge?
I am interested to know how you reach that conclusion - because it happens to be totally false!
I detect antagonism in your attitude to believers - which suggests they are unscrupulous in their methods but you make no reference to atheists, some of whose techniques are equally suspect. I should have thought an agnostic would have a balanced view… but I really don’t know how all this is related to the statements I have made.
This sounds more like an argument for atheism than agnosticism! If you refer to my previous posts on the subject of evil and suffering you will find detailed references to almost every aspect of evil and suffering imaginable.
I could take umbrage at statements that I live in a “little fantasy land”, and many other insults which are far more objectionable, but I regard them as signs of weakness. Why do people have to resort to nasty, vicious attacks if their case is so powerful? It’s like using a bulldozer to knock down a mud hut!
Not everyone has to have faith in a theological position, I agree, but I don’t see how we can avoid a metaphysical position. For example, the fact that we are communicating with others implies that we are not solipsists, i.e. we believe there are other minds apart from our own. It is impossible to avoid making some provisional assumptions about the nature of reality…
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Your statement about atheists relying on “science of the gaps” didn’t seem to be in jest, so how can you expect me to know that your statement about agnostics relying on “the gap of the gaps” was made in jest? It’s hard to tell the difference between your jokes and assertions.
Not so. Did you have an opinion about the existence of Santa Claus, unicorns, or goblins before you considered them on a conceptual level, or before you had even heard of them? Of course not. Some people just don’t look at God as a coherent concept or explanation, and don’t consider the label to be anything more than a reference to a mythical figurehead of a religion. I know I don’t. (I call it a myth not because of its truth value, but because of the method the entity was “discovered.” Anyone can feel a presence and create a personality to ascribe to the perceived presence. Children do this all the time with imaginary friends.)
In our case, this assumes that there is evidence for or against the existence of a god. Do you see any? I don’t. No evidence = no belief.
We believe our minds exist precisely because we can question the fact that they exist. By definition, thoughts are products of the mind.
The basis for my belief (or lack thereof)? I’ve lived in a world that is heavily populated by scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc., and I haven’t seen a shred of evidence or heard any persuasive deductive arguments supporting the existence of a god. This doesn’t mean the Catholic god doesn’t exist, but I do wonder why they think their guess is better than anyone else’s, since there isn’t a shred of evidence for any religion. For all we know, perhaps none of the proposed gods thus far is the real god. When you enter the realm of the supernatural, there are an infinite number of possibilities.Your presumption that I live in a “little fantasy land” implies that you know there is not plenty of “evidence” for God - which implies that you **know **there is very little, if any, evidence for God. What is the basis of your knowledge?I am interested to know how you reach that conclusion - because it happens to be totally false!
I am antagonistic toward people who act as though their faith is evidence. This implies that your faith is somehow more convincing than the faith of others. How arrogant do you have to be to believe that?
If I say that the Nazi scientists were bad, but make no mention of the Roman soldiers who enforced martial law and killed innocents, is my view imbalanced? I don’t have time to give a critique of how every group of humans went wrong somewhere. This doesn’t mean my views are imbalanced, it means that I’m not going to sit here and type all day.
How do you know that I don’t simply enjoy talking to myself? I’m not joking: how do you know?
It is, of course, needless to say that there is a difference between assuming that the physical world and other individuals exist and assuming that a transcendent, intelligent, and sentient being exists.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is obvious that “the gap of the gaps” is sheer nonsense. Liquidpele, an agnostic, seemed to enjoy “science of the gaps” so I thought it would be a pity not to add agnosticism to the list - given that it suggests a gap in our knowledge…
I was referring to adults not children.
In other words we have direct knowledge of our minds. What else do we know for certain?
What would you accept evidence for the existence of a supernatural being?
The vast majority of Christians do not believe in God because of a feeling but because of the teaching of Jesus with its revolutionary concepts of the Creator, morality and spirituality.
There are an infinite number of possible interpretations of reality but we still have to decide which is the most adequate, intelligible and in accord with our own experience.
Some atheists often act as though their atheism is indisputably true and are just as arrogant as their counterparts.
It is not a question of every group but of two groups with **opposed **views: theists and atheists. Nazi scientists and Roman soldiers hardly fit into that category.
Because you don’t seem to be mentally unbalanced! Are you denying that you make any assumptions about the nature of reality?
There is certainly a difference between assuming that transcendent, intelligent, and sentient beings exist and assuming that all explanations of their existence are equally (un)satisfactory.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I’ve seen sheer nonsense written in these forums that was fully intended to be taken seriously plenty of times.
Yeah, I get the joke.
What does this have to do with anything? The point is that some people don’t form an opinion about everything they hear. Do you disagree?
For certain? Nothing else.
Providing your definitions of “natural” and “supernatural” would be a good start for your case. This way, you can’t simply say that being supernatural means to be beyond nature. What is nature, and what would it take to transcend nature?
But since the supernatural being in question is God, I can say that I would accept nothing as evidence of his existence. You see, the Catholic conception of God ascribes four qualities to God, all of them being infinite qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. Firstly, I haven’t seen an objective definition of “power” or “love,” so evidence can’t be provided for potence or benevolence, let alone omnipotence and omnibenevolence (that is, unless you provide objective definitions). Secondly, we can’t know if God possesses knowledge, since we can’t peer into the mind of another. Lastly, even if we dismiss my first two arguments, I don’t see how you can provide evidence to support the claim that a being possesses infinite qualities. Evidence, by definition, is finite. No finite sample can support the existence of something infinite.
Many Christians I know tell me their belief is based largely on feeling, so you guys could’ve fooled me.
“Isn’t there so much beauty in the world? How could it not have been designed?!” This is the typical emotional argument I hear. There’s nothing wrong with making these arguments, so long as one admits they are based on feelings and are not actual deductions.Any atheist who claims that God definitely doesn’t exist is making the same mistake theists make, in my opinion (making a claim without providing evidence to support the claim). Are you happy that I’ve discredited both parties equally, now?
I make assumptions, yes, but I was obviously just making a point.
I agree.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is related to our previous posts:
In that case certainty is attainable about intangible reality rather than tangible reality. Our mind must be the starting point for our exploration of reality…
That is a question I have asked several times on this forum without receiving an answer. Nature seems to be generally accepted as the physical world. The problem is that we are a part of the physical world yet we seem to transcend the physical world by virtue of our power of reason, self-consciousness, free will and creative activity. Physicalists avoid this problem by attempting to explain our personal attributes as natural, i.e. in terms of physical processes but I regard them as supernatural because they are intangible, immeasurable and irreducible.
Supernatural power is personal, rational, creative energy. Love is personal, rational, creative energy which is used for the benefit and happiness of oneself and others.
We believe others possess knowledge yet we cannot peer into their minds. (Solipsism is a hypothesis which does not correspond to the way anyone lives.)
Infinity is regarded as a physical reality by many scientists and philosophers. Even if it is ignored, the wisdom and power required to design and create the universe are so immense that it makes little difference whether it exists or not.
Feelings don’t usually exist in a void. They are often based on facts. Beauty and design are features of the physical world which inspire feelings and emotions of awe, wonder, love and joy but they also have a rational basis. Our interpretation of reality cannot be entirely logical and scientific unless we assume that everything has a physical basis. It should take into account our moral, personal and spiritual convictions based on intuition, revelation, reason and experience, particularly of love and evil.
That is why I believe the most adequate and economical explanation of transcendent, intelligent and sentient beings is one transcendent, intelligent and sentient Being rather than a multitude of particles which lack these attributes.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Right.
I don’t feel that I know enough about consciousness to deem it physical or non-physical, regardless of what it seems to be. I’m on the fence on this one.
This doesn’t help me much, since all three of those modifiers are subjective (and energy cannot be directly experimented with). They are so abstract that we not only lack the ability to experiment with them, it is also unlikely that we can even communicate our thoughts with any sort of efficiency. For example, we probably have different ideas of what it means to be “rational.”
I will agree that love is one of the surest means to happiness. But again, we cannot provide evidence of love or an infinite amount of love.
I assume that others have thoughts and feelings as I do because of their behavior (if I were to stab you with a needle and make you recoil, I would assume you felt pain because I would react similarly and experience pain). I see no behaviors of God, however.
Are you saying that wisdom and power are required to create a universe such as this but that it makes little difference whether the wisdom and power exist(ed)? I ask because I might have misunderstood you. Not only do I disagree with the argument, but it seems self-contradictory as well.
This is where we are at a total disconnect. We are born with certain preferences (examples: a desire to be well-fed, get a certain amount of sleep, maintain relationships, etc.). When an aspect or feature of the world satisfies those preferences (or dissatisfies them), the occurence prompts an emotion. Beauty is created in your mind via preference satisfaction–it is not a property of matter.
I’ll return shortly for the last part of your post…
- Status