The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Cerpin Taxt]

What "claims"?

What in the world do you mean? I specifically described the single claim in the question. Are you dyslexic? Why do you spend so much time asking questions, the answers to which are staring you right in the face?

I'm simply indifferent to those other gods. I don't go around telling other religious people their gods don't exists -- I'd rather explain why I believe mines does.

That doesn't answer the question -- you're just being evasive.

Do you believe that Loki, Zeus, Jupiter, Moloch, Krishna or Shiva exist? If you answer "no," does that mean we are to expect you to provide evidence that they are non-existent?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yeah, you just keep up with that shit, Rob. You're gaining so much ground already, it can only help.

 

[Retro Rob]

Don't take this the way it sounds but that's more than a little simple-minded. When you see a leaf change color in the fall do you see evidence of G-d's existence or do you see chemical changes that happen in the leaf as the chlorophyll breaks down?

Wait, what? Where did you get this?

What I mean by indirect evidence is the fact that these physical laws of nature are in place and are constant. These precise laws are evidence of intelligence (from a Religious POV)...that's what I mean.

When you fall from a tree branch that broke from your weight do you see the force of gravity at work or do you think G-d is pushing you to the ground?

Damn strawman.

People (even theists) don't expect to see G-d through a telescope. The pictures that the Hubble telescope have taken (especially the Deep Field views) show both incredible beauty and incredible chaos from the time since the Big Bang; but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a theistic cosmologist who saw evidence of G-d in them

What?

Speaking only for myself; 1

That's okay, we'll accept you back when you change your mind.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Acknowledged.

Honestly, you need to properly use the quote feature because I am not going to be cutting/pasting to respond to your posts.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Holy crap, you can't be serious. I've answered all your questions directly and concisely. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

rofl...a lot of words is not an answer....you must really be full of something if you think you can get off that easily......

But then again -- you also said to somebody these exact words --- Do you know who I am??? <-- as if that matter in the least....

Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt View Post
It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that I don't believe in a god<--- Thank You!!

Finally an answer not based on meaningless diatribe!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

rofl...a lot of words is not an answer....you must really be full of something if you think you can get off that easily......

But then again --

Finally an answer not based on meaningless diatribe!!

Bubble gum green quark sleeps mundane under fly sutures.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Here's a quote from Lawrence Krauss' book Fear of Physics:

---------
But the diehard inventor may say to me: “How do I know for sure that energy is conserved? What makes this law so special that it cannot be violated? All existing experiments may support this idea, but maybe there is a way around it. They thought Einstein was crazy too!”

There is some merit in this objection. We should not take anything on faith. So all these books tell undergraduates that Energy Is Conserved (they even capitalize it). And it is claimed that this is a universal law of nature, true for energy in all its forms. But while this is a very useful property of nature, the important issue is Why? Emmy Noether gave us the answer, and it disappoints me that many physics texts don’t bother going this far. If you don’t explain why such a wonderous quality exists, it encourages the notion that physics is based on some set of mystical rules laid down on high, which must be memorized and to which only the initiated have access.

So why is energy conserved? Noether’s theorem tells us that it must be related to some symmetry of nature. And I remind you that a symmetry of nature tells us that if we make some transformation, everything still looks the same. Energy conservation is, in fact, related to the very symmetry that makes physics possible. We believe the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow as they are today. If they weren’t, we would have to have a different physics text for every day of the week.

So we believe, and this is to some extent an assumption—but, as I shall show, a testable one—that all the laws of nature are invariant, that is, they remained unchanged, under time translation. This is a fancy way of saying that they are the same no matter when you measure them. But if we accept this for the moment, then we can show rigorously (that is, mathematically) that there must exist a quantity, which we can call energy, that is constant over time. Thus, as new laws of nature are discovered, we do not have to worry at each stage whether they will lead to some violation of the law of conservation of energy. All we have to assume is that the underlying physical principles don’t change with time.
---------

This line of reasoning is essentially that "We assume conservation of mass and energy to be true. That assumption has allowed us to discover a great many things. Therefore it must always have been and always be true." This is simply not the case. Newtonian mechanics was the most well-supported scientific construction we had for hundreds of years, and allowed us to understand an enormous amount that we could not have before. Yet, as time went on, we found exceptions to these rules and were able to create a new model, special and general relativity, that accounted for these discrepancies.

To assume that there is not a plausible and predictive non-theistic model for the creation of the universe simply because it seems to violate a principal we currently hold dear is awfully short-sighted.

Sure, just like space is expanding faster than the speed of light right now. Space can do whatever it wants, we (things travelling trough space) can't.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what inflation implies. It is a clear violation of locality, where objects are able to move apart from each other at a speed faster than that of light.

Similar with Bell's inequalities. The fact that entangled events are truly random but still correlated requires a violation of either locality (the idea that information can't travel faster than the speed of light) or causality (that a result must be preceded by its cause). This is a tremendously unsettling conclusion for any physicist, but seems to be well-supported by the evidence.

An agnostic is someone who holds the position that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

How is that a "positive" claim?

The bolded is actually quite a strong claim. Depending on how you define God (i.e. that god is something that exists strictly outside of nature), it could be one that is supported. However, if you're willing to accept the notion of a physical God (i.e. God as a super-powerful space alien that created the universe as we know it), then we cannot assume that we'll never be able to demonstrate such an existence.

The viewpoint of most of us atheists, however, is that in the absence of any such evidence, there's really no reason to preoccupy yourself with something that has no reason to be there.

That's because you guys clearly insinuate such.

I would say that most of us live as if there were no God, and some of us claim it silly to assume there is one, but both positions are fundamentally different than claiming there is not a God at all.

 

[Retro Rob]

What in the world do you mean? I specifically described the single claim in the question. Are you dyslexic? Why do you spend so much time asking questions, the answers to which are staring you right in the face?

Ah, typo got your panties all in a bunch, I see.

That doesn't answer the question.

Because your question was stupid.

Do you believe that Loki, Zeus, Jupiter, Moloch, Krishna or Shiva exist? If you answer "no," does that mean we are to expect you to provide evidence that they are non-existent?

I simply don't believe in those gods.

Nice try, bucko.

 

[ThinClient]

Is Retro Rob related to RobM?

 

[alzan]

It's claiming a particular fact - that the knowledge is unknowable. That's not just "I don't know it", that's "I don't know this, nobody knows this and in fact nobody can know this."

That's a pretty strong claim. We're talking about the difference between someone saying "I don't know the position and velocity of this particle" and "Nobody can know the position and velocity of this particle." The first is a person admitting ignorance, the second is a theorem.

Perhaps more simply: The atheist claims a fact about themselves, while an agnostic claims a fact about everyone.

I'll accept that, but I reserve the right to modify my personal definition of agnostic to be a personal acclimation only.

 

[alzan]

Is Retro Rob related to RobM?

Yes, he changed his user name several months ago.

 

[alzan]

Wait, what? Where did you get this?

What I mean by indirect evidence is the fact that these physical laws of nature are in place and are constant. These precise laws are evidence of intelligence (from a Religious POV)...that's what I mean.

Damn strawman.





What?

Acknowledged.

Honestly, you need to properly use the quote feature because I am not going to be cutting/pasting to respond to your posts.

Well you were the one who posted "I believe that when someone says "I see not one shred of evidence of a God", I think they mean that when they point their telescopes toward the heavens, they don't physically see him."

OK. You see the constant physical laws as evidence of (an) intelligence from a religious point of view. Your religious point of view is a bias, a framework from which you view Life, the Universe and Everything (thank you Douglas, RIP). Others look past that bias and other biases to view the "raw" universe and all within it. They take off their blinders to view nature as it is.

I thought my statements "People (even theists) don't expect to see G-d through a telescope. The pictures that the Hubble telescope have taken (especially the Deep Field views) show both incredible beauty and incredible chaos from the time since the Big Bang; but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a theistic cosmologist who saw evidence of G-d in them." stood pretty well on their own in light of your post to which I was responding. Oh well.

I respond to posts with different questions that way because it helps me keep up with the flow of the "conversation". If it makes it difficult for you I'll stop.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ah, typo got your panties all in a bunch, I see.

Holy shit, how can you be this obtuse? I described -- again -- exactly the problem with your question, and it certainly wasn't the "typo." The problem is that repeatedly you've asked questions for which the answers are already written in plain English right in the very words you quote.

READ AND THINK, ROB

Because your question was stupid.

That's what I'd expect someone who was uncomfortable with the implication of the question's answer to say.

I simply don't believe in those gods.

Ok, great. Since you've made the positive claim that those goods don't exist, you are required by your own standard to present the evidence which supports that claim.

Or is it now, conveniently, not the case that someone who does not believe X is "insinuating" that he believes "not-X"?

Nice try, bucko.

If I thought you had the foggiest idea what was going on, that statement might have some significance. How unfortunate for you.

 

[Retro Rob]

I thought my statements "People (even theists) don't expect to see G-d through a telescope. The pictures that the Hubble telescope have taken (especially the Deep Field views) show both incredible beauty and incredible chaos from the time since the Big Bang; but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a theistic cosmologist who saw evidence of G-d in them." stood pretty well on their own in light of your post to which I was responding. Oh well.

Because, the point about getting this "beauty" and constant laws from "chaos" doesn't make sense.

In fact, I would expect the laws of nature to be haphazard, unstable, etc, if chaos was the sole 'creator' of our physical world.

The simple fact that these laws are so precise and elegant is more than enough to convince me that there is obvious intelligence behind them.

Sure, I am open to some things coming about by sheer chance, but not on this astronomical scale.

 

[Retro Rob]

Holy shit, how can you be this obtuse? I described -- again -- exactly the problem with your question, and it certainly wasn't the "typo." The problem is that repeatedly you've asked questions for which the answers are already written in plain English right in the very words you quote.

READ AND THINK, ROB





That's what I'd expect someone who was uncomfortable with the implication of the question's answer to say.




Ok, great. Since you've made the positive claim that those goods don't exist, you are required by your own standard to present the evidence which supports that claim.

Or is it now, conveniently, not the case that someone who does not believe X is "insinuating" that he believes "not-X"?



If I thought you had the foggiest idea what was going on, that statement might have some significance. How unfortunate for you.

LOL, it's obvious that you're trying to get me to say that [insert god here] doesn't exist.

Go play your idiotic games elsewhere.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL, it's obvious that you're trying to get me to say that [insert god here] doesn't exist.

Go play your idiotic games elsewhere.

Yes, tuck your tail between your legs and run away, Rob. So admirable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because, the point about getting this "beauty" and constant laws from "chaos" doesn't make sense.

In fact, I would expect the laws of nature to be haphazard, unstable, etc, if chaos was the sole 'creator' of our physical world.

What do you think "chaos" is?

The simple fact that these laws are so precise and elegant is more than enough to convince me that there is obvious intelligence behind them.

Why can't they be "precise and elegant" on their own? You can't imagine how they could possibly be, so therefore God? You do not appear to know what argumentum ad ignorantiam is.

Sure, I am open to some things coming about by sheer chance, but not on this astronomical scale.

Which things do you think are purported to have come about "by sheer chance"?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Because, the point about getting this "beauty" and constant laws from "chaos" doesn't make sense.

In fact, I would expect the laws of nature to be haphazard, unstable, etc, if chaos was the sole 'creator' of our physical world.

The simple fact that these laws are so precise and elegant is more than enough to convince me that there is obvious intelligence behind them.

Sure, I am open to some things coming about by sheer chance, but not on this astronomical scale.

A rather odd belief, if I've ever heard one.

Are you at all familiar with the anthropic principle?

 

[Retro Rob]

A rather odd belief, if I've ever heard one.

Are you at all familiar with the anthropic principle?

IIRC, it generally states that the Universe only seems "tuned" because of the life that observes it -- had no life been here, it wouldn't be fined tuned because life wouldn't be here.

I could be way off, but it seems more of a philosophical position than a scientific one.

You're welcome to correct any (and all) of my errors in definition.

 

[alzan]

Because, the point about getting this "beauty" and constant laws from "chaos" doesn't make sense.

In fact, I would expect the laws of nature to be haphazard, unstable, etc, if chaos was the sole 'creator' of our physical world.

The simple fact that these laws are so precise and elegant is more than enough to convince me that there is obvious intelligence behind them.

Sure, I am open to some things coming about by sheer chance, but not on this astronomical scale.

I never said, nor has any scientist ever said that chaos is the sole creator of the universe and all within it. The universe is beautiful and chaotic at the same time.

Get far outside your city limits and look at the beauty of the Milky Way. Then consider the chaotic nature of just our own solar system within the Milky Way; from the minute meteorites that bombard the Earth and Moon daily to the Levy-Shoemaker comet that broke apart and hit Jupiter just 20 years ago. That's neither precise nor elegant.

Look to our Sun, whose flares and radiation can and have wreaked havoc with our electronic devices; there's chaos for you.

As far as things coming about by sheer chance on an astronomical scale, add to that billions of years.

Now is it plausible?

 

[Retro Rob]

What do you think "chaos" is?

Disorder and confusion, right from the dictionary.

Why can't they be "precise and elegant" on their own?

Why should they be "precise and elegant" on their own?

Which things do you think are purported to have come about "by sheer chance"?

People born to atheist parents?

 

[Retro Rob]

I never said, nor has any scientist ever said that chaos is the sole creator of the universe and all within it. The universe is beautiful and chaotic at the same time.

Agree.

Get far outside your city limits and look at the beauty of the Milky Way. Then consider the chaotic nature of just our own solar system within the Milky Way; from the minute meteorites that bombard the Earth and Moon daily to the Levy-Shoemaker comet that broke apart and hit Jupiter just 20 years ago. That's neither precise nor elegant.

Actually, I was referring to the laws of nature (I.e., gravity) and how they work so well we can set our watches by them.

Look to our Sun, whose flares and radiation can and have wreaked havoc with our electronic devices; there's chaos for you.

All shielded from the earth by our core giving us the magnetic field. If it weren't for that, a lot more than our "electronic devices" would be fried..

 

[Moonbeam]

It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that I don't believe in a god. It is a fact, not a matter of opinion, that all the of the arguments and evidence for the existence of god are fallacious and/or invalid. The rules of logic and science which determine that the arguments and evidence for the existence of god are fallacious and/or invalid are not matters of opinion, either.

The point is that your attempt to parody the position of an atheist by likening it to having a favorite video game is absolutely ridiculous, puerile, and embarrassing, except that you aren't keen enough to understand your own embarrassment. Becoming an atheist simply the inevitable consequence of examining the evidence and arguments with a rational mind and applying those rules or logic and evidence to them.

Probably you mean half a mind. The logical speaking brain that sees no evidence for God is generally the left hemisphere. The hemisphere that sees God in the patterns is the right. It doesn't talk much but it knows things the left side can't comprehend. It can experience the presence of a God without any logic at all. It can do so directly. Most people don't know they have at least two different people inhabiting their brains. Be good now and don't look into a girl's left eye. hehe

 

[alzan]

Probably you mean half a mind. The logical speaking brain that sees no evidence for God is generally the left hemisphere. The hemisphere that sees God in the patterns is the right. It doesn't talk much but it knows things the left side can't comprehend. It can experience the presence of a God without any logic at all. It can do so directly. Most people don't know they have at least two different people inhabiting their brains. Be good now and don't look into a girl's left eye. hehe

No wonder I argue with myself.

 

[soulcougher73]

READ AND THINK, ROB

He wouldn't be religious if he did that

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

IIRC, it generally states that the Universe only seems "tuned" because of the life that observes it -- had no life been here, it wouldn't be fined tuned because life wouldn't be here.

I could be way off, but it seems more of a philosophical position than a scientific one.

You're welcome to correct any (and all) of my errors in definition.

It is philosophical, yes, but it's one strongly reinforced by observation on a smaller scale. For example, were you to examine only the ocean, you'd find that the creatures living there are well adapted to living in salt water. Along a similar line of think, we could that it showed the ocean was designed for life, since any life would die if the ocean was not made of water.

We don't fall into that trap simply because we can see life in other environments, and work out that the ocean isn't tuned for life, but rather that the life in the ocean is tuned for it. Cause and effect were backwards in our initial assessment.

The reason I bring this up is that you seem to suggest an ordered universe suggest design. I'd suggest that a universe where the laws of physics were unpredictable would not allow for life to exist. Any intelligence that existed would tend to be eradicated by the changes of physics.

The existence of an ordered universe is quite likely a prerequisite for life. With no ability to see into other universe, it's very much reasonable to wonder whether there are plenty of other universes out there which were chaotic, and we're simply a product of our particular one.