ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 14th November 2018, 04:05 PM   #1641
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,382
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is utter rubbish. If I am not making a claim...
You made the claim that it matters whether a particular proposition, given by analogy, is proven "scientifically" versus in some other way. But you can't tell us what "scientifically" means in that case. So your critic was right to conclude that your claim is a distinction without a difference. If you claim there's a difference but can't tell us what that difference entails, your claim fails. It's not rubbish. It's a successful challenge to your attempt to set double standards of proof.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 04:26 PM   #1642
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You made the claim that it matters whether a particular proposition, given by analogy, is proven "scientifically" versus in some other way.
No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 05:06 PM   #1643
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,382
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".
No, that wasn't the claim. The claim was that if God is said to be the cause of observable effects, then that puts the question of God's existence -- via that particular hypothesized causality -- within the reach of scientific inquiry, contrary to the common claim of theists. The issue of scientific tractability, when it comes to existential questions, is illustrated by Carl Sagan's "dragon in the garage" thought experiment. That was put to you. As Dr. Sagan predicted, you attempted to evade the gist of it by ad hoc revision. If you cannot elucidate the "scientific" standard of proof you proposed, and which you say matters, then you have simply proven Dr. Sagan's point.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 05:10 PM   #1644
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
Which is why we use the word "undetectable" and not just "very hard to detect".
Good distinction!

I learn from people smarter than me
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 05:22 PM   #1645
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, that wasn't the claim. The claim was that if God is said to be the cause of observable effects, then that puts the question of God's existence -- via that particular hypothesized causality -- within the reach of scientific inquiry, contrary to the common claim of theists.
Only in your mind. Hawking didn't say anything in the OP about God causing observable effects.

The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 05:31 PM   #1646
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,421
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".
Funny, no one claimed any such thing, even using your unique definition of proven scientifically.

I think that's the problem. You think you are addressing what's been claimed, but since it wasn't claimed, you aren't answering. You just imagine you are, the same way you imagine we posted something we did not post.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
... The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
Or maybe you imagine this says something it doesn't.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th November 2018 at 05:33 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 06:19 PM   #1647
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,382
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Only in your mind. Hawking didn't say...
I'm talking about the conversation between you and JoeMorgue that cultminated in the question I asked. You're now stuck on the horns of the very dilemma Dragon in the Garage was designed to identify.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 06:49 PM   #1648
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,800
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
Which is why your screaming about "scientific proof" is even more baffling.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't even exist to split.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 09:59 PM   #1649
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Which is why your screaming about "scientific proof" is even more baffling.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't even exist to split.
Your problem is that you think that everything I post is wrong (including this sentence).

Your jumping up and down began in earnest way back in post #1512 when I said that science has nothing whatsoever to say about gods. By post #1570 When I suggested that no scientific tests exists and we can't settle the matter scientifically, you were positively apoplectic.

If it were possible to enrage you further then post #1588 did it:
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You can say (without fear of contradiction) that there are no invisible dragons in your garage.

What you can't say is that you ran a batch of scientific tests which proved that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. That would be a lie.
In a ridiculous twist of logic, I am suddenly required devise a scientific test to prove that god/dragons exist before I can challenge the assertion that non-existence has been "scientifically proved".

So don't tell me that this has nothing to do with scientific proof. Your rage and the cheers from your peanut gallery say otherwise.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:48 PM   #1650
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Just below your post, read it.
I asked you about a specific case and you answered with grand theories. Please, centre yourself on my question. It is about how you apply your theories.
Do you distinguish the chair you imagine and the chair you are sit in? How?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 10:54 PM   #1651
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There is no god in the universe, is not that same as is there no god outside the universe.
What method do you use to know what is out of the universe?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:05 PM   #1652
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The same one that establishes that all swans are white? Maybe there is no such test and we can't settle the matter scientifically.
Incomplete induction can fail. So you can put your hand in a pot of boiling water. Who knows? You don't know really if boiling water burns. And if someone says that he knows, he is being dogmatic.

In addition: science is not only induction. There are laws, theories, deduction and more.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You can say (without fear of contradiction) that there are no invisible dragons in your garage.

What you can't say is that you ran a batch of scientific tests which proved that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. That would be a lie.
Then, is hard atheism justified? Do I know that boiling water burns?

Last edited by David Mo; 14th November 2018 at 11:10 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:15 PM   #1653
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Did!
I've double checked all your posts in this thread and you are mistaken, perhaps you posted the refuted maths in a different thread?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:26 PM   #1654
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Then, is hard atheism justified? Do I know that boiling water burns?
If you have been paying attention then you would know that I don't expect the truth of everything to be tested scientifically.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:29 PM   #1655
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've double checked all your posts in this thread and you are mistaken, perhaps you posted the refuted maths in a different thread?
I didn't think you were being serious. I didn't think that anybody could possibly believe that I have to prove that Hawking's maths is incorrect before I can challenge a mere assertion of his.

FYI "Hawking says" =/= "scientifically proven".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:52 PM   #1656
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you have been paying attention then you would know that I don't expect the truth of everything to be tested scientifically.
If you have paid attention to my previous comments and this one in particular I have not said anything about scientifically proven. I was speaking in a philosophical way. Or common sense. As you like. In a similar way that I know the boiling water burns.

By the way: it is difficult to pay attention to the flood of comments in this thread.

Last edited by David Mo; 14th November 2018 at 11:56 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2018, 11:53 PM   #1657
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I didn't think you were being serious. I didn't think that anybody could possibly believe that I have to prove that Hawking's maths is incorrect before I can challenge a mere assertion of his.

FYI "Hawking says" =/= "scientifically proven".
It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it "is". His theories are mathematical theories, if you wish to claim his conclusions are wrong you'll need to show where and how his theories are wrong. Now there are only two ways of doing that, one is to show that they do not fit the evidence we have or that there is a mathematical mistake in the formulation. Either method requires you to present the maths to support your claim.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 12:11 AM   #1658
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As I said earlier on I don't have the mathematical knowledge nor skill to understand fully the maths of Hawking's claims . . . .
Argument from ignorance is a poor way to argue. It makes your claim "It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it 'is'" just a sea of words.

The reason I don't have to examine his maths per se is because he didn't use any maths in his postulate (the laws of nature are fixed) nor his conditional statement (if the postulate is true then there is no room for God).

Of course he relied on his authority as a scientist to make this assertion so it is right to examine whether his knowledge as a scientist makes the assertion reasonable (which I did). Again, I don't have to challenge the maths (he is hardly likely to get that wrong). It is only necessary to examine the underpinning assumptions and whether some of his conclusions are the only way to interpret the data he used.

Since you so carefully went over all of my posts, you know exactly which aspects of his scientific knowledge I examined.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th November 2018 at 12:13 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 12:25 AM   #1659
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Argument from ignorance is a poor way to argue. It makes your claim "It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it 'is'" just a sea of words.

The reason I don't have to examine his maths per se is because he didn't use any maths in his postulate (the laws of nature are fixed) nor his conditional statement (if the postulate is true then there is no room for God).

Of course he relied on his authority as a scientist to make this assertion so it is right to examine whether his knowledge as a scientist makes the assertion reasonable (which I did). Again, I don't have to challenge the maths (he is hardly likely to get that wrong). It is only necessary to examine the underpinning assumptions and whether some of his conclusions are the only way to interpret the data he used.

Since you so carefully went over all of my posts, you know exactly which aspects of his scientific knowledge I examined.
It would have been quicker to have just said you have no interest in his scientific conclusions you know.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 12:43 AM   #1660
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It would have been quicker to have just said you have no interest in his scientific conclusions you know.
Except that it would have been the exact opposite of what I posted.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 01:09 AM   #1661
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Except that it would have been the exact opposite of what I posted.
Yet it isn't. Strange that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 01:27 AM   #1662
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yet it isn't. Strange that.
Not to me but since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you I understand why you might think this way.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 01:36 AM   #1663
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,421
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
... since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you ....
You keep saying **** like this when you fail to present a logical argument or convince anyone of your position. No one's buying it. Especially on this forum where such tactics are well known.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 01:40 AM   #1664
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,401
I think something exists beyond the cosmic horizon. In fact I think that for at least tens of billions of light years beyond the cosmic horizon, perhaps infinitely far, there are galaxies filled with stars that look very much like the ones that we can see here.

Yet if they exist they are literally undetectable. There is absolutely no way that those things can influence us, even in principle. There is also no way to test the idea that they exist.

Yet I still think that they are out there.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 02:27 AM   #1665
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Not to me but since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you I understand why you might think this way.
No your posts are very simplistic so it's not those I can't follow.

Your problem seems to be not understanding what Hawking said and why.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 02:49 AM   #1666
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,601
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is only necessary to examine the underpinning assumptions and whether some of his conclusions are the only way to interpret the data he used.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It would have been quicker to have just said you have no interest in his scientific conclusions you know.
Do you see why an interest in Hawking's conclusions being misrepresented as a lack of interest in Hawking's conclusions might lead me to question your sincerity?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th November 2018 at 03:11 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 03:47 AM   #1667
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
But "everything that exists" is the prevailing definition of "universe" and always has been.

When you suggest a god might live "outside the universe," what variant definition of "universe" are you using? You want to make that definition clear, in order to make your suggestion meaningful, don't you? A god might exist outside of what, exactly?
Could you stop concentrate on the definition? What we mean by a word, says nothing about if matches the rest of reality, it only tells us how we use the word.
Let me show you - "everything that exists" is as it stands empty, because it doesn't tell us what exists and what existence is.
So instead of concentrating solely on what words mean, you also have to ask how do the words "everything that exists" connect to everything that exists.
See now?!!
You need to have definitions so we talk about the same, but it doesn't stop there. That is the point - a definition only enables us to understand each other, it doesn't tell us if the words e.g. "the cat on the mat" match the cat on the mat.

Second part - if you are a skeptic, you accept that it might not turn out to be meaningful, because there may be a limit to meaningful.
The universe might not care about that the universe is meaningful. That you demand that it must be meaningful, might be problematic if there is no in toto meaningful explanation of the universe.
To be a skeptic is to start by not taking for granted that you can confirm your expectations.
That is the overlap between falsification/falsifiable in science and skepticism. The both require that you accept a result, which doesn't match your expectations.
You have started with an expectation, that it must be meaningful, but it might turn out not to be that.

So - tell me how you use a word and what it is about and how you explain that?
All 3 - not just how you use a word!
So if you take for granted, that a result must be meaningful, you are doing verification. I don't do verification, I do falsification. I ask if everything is meaningful and if it is not, I accept that.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:07 AM   #1668
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I think calling the Advaitic Brahman "God" is just a quirk of translation combined with a different conception of reality in the eastern vs western mind.

"God" is a deity in the West. "Theists" in the west actively hold beliefs in one or more deities.


Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not just the West its most places.


That makes sense.

That would explain the rendering into the word “God” of their own venerated ideals by people like Advaitists and (some) Theravadins, as well as (some) Sufis, et cetera. And that would also explain the inability of those who haven’t been exposed to these ideas, to conceive of a “God idea” that isn’t deity-based.



But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.



What about you, kellyb, and Darat? I realize this is open to subjective interpretation, there can be no set-in-stone guidelines that either you or I can lay down: but what would your personal interpretation be? How would you define the terms of discussion, given what I’ve said here, and how would you state your views on soft and hard atheism in light of this?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:11 AM   #1669
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,268
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
...
Commendable attempt at moving the conversation forward.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:22 AM   #1670
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
But "everything that exists" is the prevailing definition of "universe" and always has been.

When you suggest a god might live "outside the universe," what variant definition of "universe" are you using? You want to make that definition clear, in order to make your suggestion meaningful, don't you? A god might exist outside of what, exactly?
Take 2:

No.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=exist
https://www.etymonline.com/word/exis...online_v_14062

So the word "exist", in the meaning we use, hasn't always been around.

In other words you take your culture for granted and consider it universal.

The same with "thing":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/thin...online_v_10758

The same with "everything":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ever...online_v_38477

It is possible to talk about "everything, that exists" without talking about "things" and "existence".

In a cultural perspective before science/the enlightenment, we had religion, but is that the end? What is if there is something different from both science/the enlightenment and religion?
What if there are no magistrates both for science and religion?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:24 AM   #1671
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,800
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.
But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard adragonism, and the different types of Invisible Garage Dragons?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as the Invisible Garage Dragon, and so limit our discussion of dragonism and adragonism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity Dragon-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “Dragon”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard adragonism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard adragonist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract Dragon-like ideas, that do not involve any reptiles at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of dragonism and adragonism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard adragonism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard adragonist but a soft adragonist.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:26 AM   #1672
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,800
Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:30 AM   #1673
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.
Then accept that some of us do it differently. I accept your world-view as yours and I accept that you don't accept mine.
But if you want to insist on "right" and "wrong" I am game.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:39 AM   #1674
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Hawking says there are no gods

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think something exists beyond the cosmic horizon. In fact I think that for at least tens of billions of light years beyond the cosmic horizon, perhaps infinitely far, there are galaxies filled with stars that look very much like the ones that we can see here.



Yet if they exist they are literally undetectable. There is absolutely no way that those things can influence us, even in principle. There is also no way to test the idea that they exist.



Yet I still think that they are out there.


It is quite an astonishing thought, when I first heard of lightcones and so on and the implications it as they say “blew my mind”.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 15th November 2018 at 06:44 AM. Reason: No mood for this
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:40 AM   #1675
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do you see why an interest in Hawking's conclusions being misrepresented as a lack of interest in Hawking's conclusions might lead me to question your sincerity?


The underlying is the maths.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:43 AM   #1676
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,231
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That makes sense.



That would explain the rendering into the word “God” of their own venerated ideals by people like Advaitists and (some) Theravadins, as well as (some) Sufis, et cetera. And that would also explain the inability of those who haven’t been exposed to these ideas, to conceive of a “God idea” that isn’t deity-based.







But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?



Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.



Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.







What about you, kellyb, and Darat? I realize this is open to subjective interpretation, there can be no set-in-stone guidelines that either you or I can lay down: but what would your personal interpretation be? How would you define the terms of discussion, given what I’ve said here, and how would you state your views on soft and hard atheism in light of this?


I keep it simple. If your answer to “which god do you believe in?” Is “none” then you are an atheist. Atheism isn’t a position of knowledge but one of belief. If you don’t actually believe in a god then you are an atheist.

The silliness of hard and soft and so on atheism arises from a misunderstanding of what atheism is.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:45 AM   #1677
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The underlying is the maths.
Does math always match all of reality or is math limited?
We always end here: It is not given that we can explain reality in coherent terms using reason, logic/math AND evidence.
Maybe it is nothing but an idea in a given human brain.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:46 AM   #1678
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,572
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I keep it simple. If your answer to “which god do you believe in?” Is “none” then you are an atheist. Atheism isn’t a position of knowledge but one of belief. If you don’t actually believe in a god then you are an atheist.

The silliness of hard and soft and so on atheism arises from a misunderstanding of what atheism is.
Yes, that is about knowledge.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:53 AM   #1679
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,800
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
But if you want to insist on "right" and "wrong" I am game.
Do people really think not having intellectual standards makes them better people?

Because I notice whenever theists and apologists get argued into a corner, this is usually their last defense, some variation on "You're being mean."

And that's absolute nonsense. I care enough about people that I don't want them to be wrong.

Penn Jillette once said that ideologically he gets along with the hardcore theists a lot more than he does with the wishy washy "Oh it's all the same" people. Why? Because they respect him enough to tell him "You are wrong" and he can look them in the eye and go "You are wrong" while the whole "Oh there are many paths to truth..." is the way you talk down to a child.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 15th November 2018 at 06:56 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:55 AM   #1680
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard adragonism, and the different types of Invisible Garage Dragons?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as the Invisible Garage Dragon, and so limit our discussion of dragonism and adragonism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity Dragon-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “Dragon”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard adragonism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard adragonist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract Dragon-like ideas, that do not involve any reptiles at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of dragonism and adragonism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard adragonism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard adragonist but a soft adragonist.

Carl Sagan's dragon is a lovely device for showing up the absurdity of some of our ideas, but I'm afraid there are nuances that it can't quite cover. To that extent, one sees how this device is misused for rhetorical grandstanding rather than for making cogent reasoned arguments.

Here's how this rhetoric is disingenuous: The dragon is a wholly pointless and ridiculous idea that no one takes seriously; and the intent is to have these traits supplanted on the subject under discussion. While often valid, there are times when this simply doesn't apply.

The fact is that some issues are accorded greater precision than others. And nor is this necessarily a fallacious double standard, for reasons I've explained more than once, reasons that you've been singularly unable to either refute or accept.

Let me see if trying another tack might help: You do know that courts of law will never pronounce you "innocent", don't you? They'll only say you're "not guilty". That is because it is often impossible to actually prove innocence. (Most cases aren't quite as cut and dried as David Schwimmer's shoplifting!)

Like that shoplifting case, some defendents can indeed be proved innocent. However, in general we tend to go with "not guilty", as showing that there isn't enough evidence for guilt is usually the best we can do.

Thus with God ideas. Some God ideas we can indeed disprove (in as much science can actually prove or disprove anything, that goes without saying). However, generally simply showing a lack of evidence is the best we can do, so generally soft atheism is what is reasonable.



If you would only try to clearly think through and address the points I have raised, for instance in my previous post, rather than go in for this asinine grandstanding, then we might make better headway.


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

And nor am I remotely interested in getting you, personally, to play this game, or for that matter any game.


Quote:
In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.

No, that isn't remotely an answer, given the discussion we've already had on this. That's only a wisecrack.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.