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

Reply
Old 27th September 2019, 04:09 AM   #281
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No. I have not said that all atheists act the same as believers just for the sake of having a life project.
I don't recall suggesting you said that.

But you have already agreed that the "vital project" of which you speak consists of things that nearly everyone, Theist or atheist, does in any case.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 27th September 2019 at 04:17 AM.
Robin 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 27th September 2019, 04:16 AM   #282
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know what philosophy you're talking about either. It's not mine.
That is pretty much what you said.

I even asked you to confirm that by "vital project" you meant everyday stuff that everybody does in any case and you agreed. You even quoted a part out of Moliere to underline the fact.

Are you now saying that the "vital project" is not everyday stuff that everybody does in any case?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 27th September 2019, 04:20 AM   #283
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,295
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The belief is that God has always existed.
The belief that the universe/multiverse always existed is more parsimonious. If the idea of God always existing is acceptable to you then the idea of the universe/multiverse always existing must be equally acceptable - the two concepts are logically identical.

There's no need for god(s), and postulating their existence raises far more questions than are answered.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 27th September 2019, 04:42 AM   #284
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
David, here is a recap

You were describing what a vital project consists of.

Me: "Isn't that just part of normal functioning human life?"
You: "Yes. I was not saying anything else."
Me: "I am lost here. The vital project of which you speak is to go on going the stuff we did when we had never heard of of the idea of a vital project?

In what sense were we making a mistake then, if we were doing the thing you are recommending already?"
You: "This is like Moliere's The Midle-Class Gentleman who was speaking in prose without knowing it:"

How have I misrepresented you?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 27th September 2019, 05:01 AM   #285
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The belief that the universe/multiverse always existed is more parsimonious. If the idea of God always existing is acceptable to you then the idea of the universe/multiverse always existing must be equally acceptable - the two concepts are logically identical.

There's no need for god(s), and postulating their existence raises far more questions than are answered.
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.

But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 27th September 2019, 05:25 AM   #286
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,295
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
That's the current understanding, yes. But an eternal multiverse, consisting of many (possibly an infinite number of) universes each of which begin and end, is not ruled out - even strongly indicated - by that same understanding. That would also answer the so-called fine tuning problem in that, however unlikely this particular universe might seem, it would be bound to occur amongst all the other possibilities which would also occur.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 27th September 2019, 07:26 AM   #287
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
It's getting complicated to get along with you. I don't know whose fault it is, although I have an idea of that.

Let me see if I can explain the reference to Molière.
Atheists and Christians talk in prose, but that does not mean that what they say is the same.
Nor are all atheists the same, even though they all speak in prose. What they say is not always the same, even if they agree on some points and speak in prose.

The life project is the same as speaking in prose. Everyone has one but not everyone knowsthat he has something called a "life project". Like M. Jourdain, who didn't know he spoke prose.
Christians have a life project. So do the atheists. But that doesn't mean it's the same, because both life projects are different in their content.
Some atheists, not all, resemble Christians in that their life project includes principles of absolute value. Not all atheist life projects are the same.

I hope this will be clear.
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 27th September 2019, 07:33 AM   #288
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,106
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
That's the current understanding, yes. But an eternal multiverse, consisting of many (possibly an infinite number of) universes each of which begin and end, is not ruled out - even strongly indicated - by that same understanding. That would also answer the so-called fine tuning problem in that, however unlikely this particular universe might seem, it would be bound to occur amongst all the other possibilities which would also occur.
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 27th September 2019, 07:56 AM   #289
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,295
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
An answer which just replaces the question with a different question is no answer at all, and certainly not a simple one. Postulating a god to explain the universe simply replaces the question "where did the universe come from" with the question "where did god come from". A universe/multiverse which always existed is a simpler explanation than a universe/multiverse which was created by a god which always existed. The god adds an extra, unnecessary, layer of explanation. It's a textbook application of Occam's Razor to remove it, along with the additional questions it raises (e.g. what was the god doing in the infinite amount of time before it created the universe, the problem of evil, etc etc).
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 27th September 2019, 08:03 AM   #290
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,104
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
When the simple answer could be God created it.
It's a simple answer, but not a good one.

Why is the sky blue? God made it that way!

See what I mean?
I Am The Scum 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 27th September 2019, 08:09 AM   #291
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,860
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have commented on those differences in several comments --#226 was the latter-- that you ignore over and over again.

We can go over them one by one:
The most important: the difference between believing that a fiction entity is a fiction entity and believing that a fiction entity is real.
The reader of Spiderman knows that his hero does not exist. The Christian believes that his God exists.
From here the differences between both beliefs are abysmal. I don't know how you can deny this.

Of course there are many kinds of Christianity. But the ones I know are based on the beliefs that I have described and summarized by the name of Superfather. That's what I'm talking about. Not the differences about the role of grace, the consubstantiality of the Son and these things that cause Christians to kill each other from time to time.
This is the first time I have ever heard God referred to as SuperFather.

Maybe God wears tights and a cape with a big S on his chest.
Sounds like a comic book hero to me.
"Faster than a speeding bullet."
"Able to change a diaper with one hand."
"He's Superfather!"

The problem with your nonsense is you were talking about atheists not theists. Atheists don't believe that God has any of those qualities you and theists might assign to him/her/it. They don't believe a God exists. With or without a cape. So to us, one mythical being is EXACTLY like another. Nothing looks like nothing. And regardless of how many times that people might say that their nothing is special with super powers it appears exactly like that nothing that doesn't have any super powers.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 27th September 2019, 08:48 AM   #292
kayle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 334
No. I would call it realistic. much better than seeking peace of mind in a bearded guy and 'is son or any other diety that the world have come up with.
kayle 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 27th September 2019, 09:05 AM   #293
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,005
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
It depends on how you look at it. Current cosmology makes no claim to anything "before" the Big Bang. There is no eternity of nothingness that the universe suddenly springs into. Humans experience time sequentially, so it's hard to perceive of it as a dimension. But asking "what came before the Big Bang?" may be like asking "what is north of the North Pole?".

The universe, including all of spacetime, may, in a sense that is hard for us to apprehend, simply be.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 27th September 2019, 09:06 AM   #294
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,005
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Sort of like geology is complicated, and a simpler answer to "why does the volcano erupt?" is that the god who lives in it is pissed.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 27th September 2019, 09:18 AM   #295
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.

But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.

No! ... the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and that produced the form of this universe that we can detect today. But the energy potential that produced the big bang, existed before the big bang.

Most likely, that energy potential has always existed, ie it's "eternal" (there's probably no other option). I.e.; the total energy of this universe (inc. any other universes in any multiverse) is probably fixed & constant (in fact, the total energy is actually Zero if you add up all the forces that act in opposing ways, ie attractive vs repulsive) ... all that happens to produce any universe (inc. ours) is that at various moments that eternal energy (a set of various interacting energy fields) changes it's state, to produce what we call a new universe via a process like the big bang.

The reason for that change of state is also fairly well understood, and I've explained it here many times before (you can find it explained in almost any popular level book on the Big Bang or on Multiverse models, such as the Many Worlds book by Alex Vilenkin, or anything from Alan Guth or dozens of others in this field).
IanS 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 27th September 2019, 09:33 AM   #296
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,808
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! ... the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and that produced the form of this universe that we can detect today. But the energy potential that produced the big bang, existed before the big bang.

Most likely, that energy potential has always existed, ie it's "eternal" (there's probably no other option). I.e.; the total energy of this universe (inc. any other universes in any multiverse) is probably fixed & constant (in fact, the total energy is actually Zero if you add up all the forces that act in opposing ways, ie attractive vs repulsive) ... all that happens to produce any universe (inc. ours) is that at various moments that eternal energy (a set of various interacting energy fields) changes it's state, to produce what we call a new universe via a process like the big bang.

The reason for that change of state is also fairly well understood, and I've explained it here many times before (you can find it explained in almost any popular level book on the Big Bang or on Multiverse models, such as the Many Worlds book by Alex Vilenkin, or anything from Alan Guth or dozens of others in this field).
Oh, gosh, this all seems so dang complicated. Can't we just say "god!" and be done with it?

"Occam's Razor! Simplest answer! That's logic, I win, I win!"

(More seriously- I have yet to meet the believer who understands just why, as Pixel42 says, "goddidit!" isn't according to the Razor, it's in violation of it. It may be that it's simply baked into their way of thinking to confuse "simple" with "simplistic.")
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 27th September 2019, 10:14 AM   #297
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Why is a Godless universe less likely to exist than God? What is the likelihood that God would exist? Picking one explanation over another on the basis that one of is more likely than the other when you've no way of determining the likelihood of either makes no sense.

You've also taken something you see as inexplicable or unlikely (a Godless universe) and replaced it with something just as inexplicable or unlikely (a God that created the universe. The thing is, we know the universe exists, so adding God to the equation just makes it much more complex by introducing a mysterious factor with unknown attributes whose existence has yet to be determined. It's not simple at all.

"God did it" is a far worse answer than "we don't know." There's nothing wrong with shrugging your shoulders and admitting you don't know why the universe exists.
JesseCuster 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 27th September 2019, 11:02 AM   #298
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,807
Originally Posted by kayle View Post
No. I would call it realistic. much better than seeking peace of mind in a bearded guy and 'is son or any other diety that the world have come up with.
I have a beard, and a daughter. Is there anything I can do to help?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 27th September 2019, 11:15 AM   #299
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,030
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
It is said, God remains perfect and untouched by suffering. He simply created a system that would ultimately lead us back to him over countless lifetimes.

God does not tell soldiers what to do , he simply allows us free will to act as we see fit, but makes us answerable for our actions over many lives.

A trance medium once said, we are presently at the stage of spiritual evolution that equates to kindergarten.

The human race may take another million years to evolve to what we are intended to become.
Nice to see you agree that your god is a terrible and repulsive entity.
__________________
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 27th September 2019, 01:57 PM   #300
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The belief is that God has always existed. That may not seem possible in our way of thinking, but that's what I seem to recall a spirit guide saying.
So you claim that uncaused entities are possible?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 27th September 2019, 02:28 PM   #301
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,325
This is from post #287, which I am unable to quote directly, because the quote button gives me a blank file. The direct link is http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=287

Quote:


It's getting complicated to get along with you. I don't know whose fault it is, although I have an idea of that.

Let me see if I can explain the reference to Molière.
Atheists and Christians talk in prose, but that does not mean that what they say is the same.
Nor are all atheists the same, even though they all speak in prose. What they say is not always the same, even if they agree on some points and speak in prose.

The life project is the same as speaking in prose. Everyone has one but not everyone knowsthat he has something called a "life project". Like M. Jourdain, who didn't know he spoke prose.
Christians have a life project. So do the atheists. But that doesn't mean it's the same, because both life projects are different in their content.
Some atheists, not all, resemble Christians in that their life project includes principles of absolute value. Not all atheist life projects are the same.

I hope this will be clear.
David,

It appears to me that part of the misunderstandings here relate to your use of the word "project."

I don't know whether the word in Portuguese has different meanings than it does in English, but for most English speakers, in the way in which you seem to be using it, "project" means "a specific set of actions to accomplish a specific goal." So I set up a project to build a house, or a project to develop a business.

Your use seems to be related to "a philosophy of life" or "a set of ideas or guidelines" that may or may not have a goal for the end of a person's life – unless of course that goal is whatever the religion tells the person.


Perhaps because you grew up in a society where the Catholic Church is as much a part of the environment as air, you don't see that for most people who grow up where (any) religion is more like a choice of which sport to play, that religious atmosphere means very little. It's not something that we see around us constantly, not something that we find affecting our lives.

xterra
__________________
Over we go....
xterra 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 27th September 2019, 02:35 PM   #302
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
You thought wrong. That misconception is no part of any science.

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.
Sure and it could be universe forming pixies doing it. So what?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 27th September 2019, 03:59 PM   #303
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,860
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Why is a Godless universe less likely to exist than God? What is the likelihood that God would exist? Picking one explanation over another on the basis that one of is more likely than the other when you've no way of determining the likelihood of either makes no sense.

You've also taken something you see as inexplicable or unlikely (a Godless universe) and replaced it with something just as inexplicable or unlikely (a God that created the universe. The thing is, we know the universe exists, so adding God to the equation just makes it much more complex by introducing a mysterious factor with unknown attributes whose existence has yet to be determined. It's not simple at all.

"God did it" is a far worse answer than "we don't know." There's nothing wrong with shrugging your shoulders and admitting you don't know why the universe exists.
It's absolutely impossible to calculate the possibility of a God because we have absolutely NO credible evidence that points to a god. None.

There was a time when God or gods explained virtually every natural phenomenon. Zeus threw bolts of lightning and thunder was created by Thor's hammer. Illnesses were caused by evil spirits. And then science took over and then we learned that there are natural causes for all those things.

God isn't an answer to anything as best as I can tell. He's only an excuse to stop looking for the actual answer.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 27th September 2019, 04:06 PM   #304
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,860
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The belief is that God has always existed. That may not seem possible in our way of thinking, but that's what I seem to recall a spirit guide saying.
My question is does anyone have any credible evidence to support that belief? I'll roll my eyes until I see some.

The time to believe something is when there is evidence. Otherwise you'll end up believing some pretty stupid stuff.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 27th September 2019 at 05:33 PM.
acbytesla 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 27th September 2019, 05:14 PM   #305
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
An answer which just replaces the question with a different question is no answer at all, and certainly not a simple one. Postulating a god to explain the universe simply replaces the question "where did the universe come from" with the question "where did god come from". A universe/multiverse which always existed is a simpler explanation than a universe/multiverse which was created by a god which always existed. The god adds an extra, unnecessary, layer of explanation. It's a textbook application of Occam's Razor to remove it, along with the additional questions it raises (e.g. what was the god doing in the infinite amount of time before it created the universe, the problem of evil, etc etc).

Yes the classic response Pixel but you won't convince theists with it. Not interested in explaining how God came into existence, their eyes just glaze over as they claim God was always there.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 27th September 2019, 06:06 PM   #306
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It's getting complicated to get along with you. I don't know whose fault it is, although I have an idea of that.

Let me see if I can explain the reference to Molière.
Atheists and Christians talk in prose, but that does not mean that what they say is the same.
Nor are all atheists the same, even though they all speak in prose. What they say is not always the same, even if they agree on some points and speak in prose.

The life project is the same as speaking in prose. Everyone has one but not everyone knowsthat he has something called a "life project". Like M. Jourdain, who didn't know he spoke prose.
Christians have a life project. So do the atheists. But that doesn't mean it's the same, because both life projects are different in their content.
Some atheists, not all, resemble Christians in that their life project includes principles of absolute value. Not all atheist life projects are the same.

I hope this will be clear.
You still don't seem to understand my question.

You say many atheists are making a mistake.

A mistake implies they are either doing something wrong, or not doing something they should be doing, or doing something they should not be doing.

OK so far?

So you recommend that they should have a vital project.

But when pressed for details about this vital project it turns out to be the everyday stuff that nearly everybody, atheist or not, already does in any case.

So you are saying that there is something that atheists do is wrong, but your recommendation is for them to continue doing what they were already doing.

Do you not understand why I have a problem with that?

What I am looking for, is what you are recommending for atheists to do that is not something they are already doing?

Does that make the question clear?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 27th September 2019, 08:40 PM   #307
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,625
Yes thanks Robin, that’s where Mo has me confused too.
Lithrael 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 27th September 2019, 09:34 PM   #308
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is the first time I have ever heard God referred to as SuperFather.
(...)

The problem with your nonsense is you were talking about atheists not theists. (...)
You're unfortunately deflecting the subject. The issue that has been raised is the difference between God and comic heroes in people's beliefs. The atheist will be discussed later if you are willing to answer the question I have raised:

The most important difference between God and Spiderman is its effect on people's beliefs: the difference between believing that a fiction entity is a fiction entity and believing that a fiction entity is real.
The reader of Spiderman knows that his hero does not exist. The Christian believes that his God exists.
From here the differences between both beliefs are abysmal. I don't know how you can deny this.

It is totally accessory whether you like or dislike the name I have invented to highlight the protective aspect of God in the belief of his faithful.
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 27th September 2019, 09:50 PM   #309
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
This is from post #287, which I am unable to quote directly, because the quote button gives me a blank file. The direct link is http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=287



David,

It appears to me that part of the misunderstandings here relate to your use of the word "project."

I don't know whether the word in Portuguese has different meanings than it does in English, but for most English speakers, in the way in which you seem to be using it, "project" means "a specific set of actions to accomplish a specific goal." So I set up a project to build a house, or a project to develop a business.

Your use seems to be related to "a philosophy of life" or "a set of ideas or guidelines" that may or may not have a goal for the end of a person's life – unless of course that goal is whatever the religion tells the person.


Perhaps because you grew up in a society where the Catholic Church is as much a part of the environment as air, you don't see that for most people who grow up where (any) religion is more like a choice of which sport to play, that religious atmosphere means very little. It's not something that we see around us constantly, not something that we find affecting our lives.

xterra
The word project is commonly used to designate the goals that a person sets in their life. There are partial goals, such as getting a job or winning a game of petanque. But it is also commonly assumed that I have some general goals that govern my life. Indeed, one can speak of a philosophy of life, if we include in it the essential question of what I can expect from my life and what I should do with it. But the idea of philosophy of life is limited to the conscious. What I advocate here is that the life project has an important unconscious component. (Not to mention that to pronounce the word philosophy in this forum is to open the box of thunder and fury.)

This conception is not religious. It is defended by atheist philosophers like Sartre.

It may be that my Catholic environment influences me to think that the decision to dispense with God to form my life project is "dramatic" and I cannot avoid "anguish". It's probably that people here understand these concepts in a psychological rather than a philosophical sense. I would have to explain them better. But I believe that in addition to this the forists who are disproportionately indignant because I calmly expose my ideas have other reasons to become nervous. Maybe they don't feel as confident as they appear.
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 27th September 2019, 10:07 PM   #310
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You still don't seem to understand my question.

You say many atheists are making a mistake.

A mistake implies they are either doing something wrong, or not doing something they should be doing, or doing something they should not be doing.

OK so far?

So you recommend that they should have a vital project.

But when pressed for details about this vital project it turns out to be the everyday stuff that nearly everybody, atheist or not, already does in any case.

So you are saying that there is something that atheists do is wrong, but your recommendation is for them to continue doing what they were already doing.

Do you not understand why I have a problem with that?
Indeed, you have a problem with this, but this is not my fault.

Everyone has a life project but not everyone is aware of it. For example: there is a participant in this forum who denies having a life project. So the thing is not as obvious and simple as you pretend.

Secondly, you have the problem that you only read half-heartedly what I write . Because besides saying that everyone has a life project I say that there are two components in it: a conscious part and an unconscious part. These two parts can come into conflict and the unconscious part may impose itself on the conscious. For this or other reasons the life project may be wrong (if it is based on things that don't exist like God or absolute values, for example) or incoherent (if it claims to be free but denies the freedom to think, for example). That is why some atheists may be wrong about. They are not wrong because they have a life project, as you say that I say, but to have a life project that is inconsistent with their atheism. I beg you to retain the latter, because otherwise our discussion is stuck in a dead-end loop.

It would be like a politician who claims to be left-wing but votes in favour of reactionary laws. It is quite common. The same goes for atheists who, without realising it, adopt "religious" points of view. Like many communists, for example.

Last edited by David Mo; 28th September 2019 at 12:01 AM.
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 27th September 2019, 10:12 PM   #311
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Yes thanks Robin, that’s where Mo has me confused too.
I don't think it is me who is confusing you. Read my last comment, please.

Last edited by David Mo; 27th September 2019 at 11:59 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 28th September 2019, 01:10 AM   #312
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't think it is me who is confusing you. Read my last comment, please.
So basically all you are saying is that atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 28th September 2019, 02:38 AM   #313
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So basically all you are saying is that atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives?
"All you are saying is that [some] atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our [their] lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives" [in many respects and similar in other].

Now, yes. This is what I am saying.
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 28th September 2019, 05:45 AM   #314
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,335
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
<snip>

Sure and it could be universe forming pixies doing it. So what?

I like pixies. Especially Disney pixies.

I'm gonna go with that.

Pixies are God.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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 28th September 2019, 09:47 AM   #315
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,860
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're unfortunately deflecting the subject. The issue that has been raised is the difference between God and comic heroes in people's beliefs. The atheist will be discussed later if you are willing to answer the question I have raised:

The most important difference between God and Spiderman is its effect on people's beliefs: the difference between believing that a fiction entity is a fiction entity and believing that a fiction entity is real.
The reader of Spiderman knows that his hero does not exist. The Christian believes that his God exists.
From here the differences between both beliefs are abysmal. I don't know how you can deny this.

It is totally accessory whether you like or dislike the name I have invented to highlight the protective aspect of God in the belief of his faithful.
No! You were talking about atheists. It is you that said the moronic statement about atheists and you keep pretending that what Christians believe about their God has any relevance to what an atheist believes.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 28th September 2019, 10:17 PM   #316
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No! You were talking about atheists. It is you that said the moronic statement about atheists and you keep pretending that what Christians believe about their God has any relevance to what an atheist believes.
This is a new evasive.
After evading the problem several times it seems to me that it is clear that you have got yourself into an absurd dead end from which you don't know how to get out.

And now you pretend going out from the impasse by entering into a new dead-end.

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God. I don't know how you define an atheist, whether the one who doesn't believe that God exists or the one who believes that God doesn't exist. Or the one who claims that God does not exist. I don't care. In all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer. The atheist denies the theist's belief because it seems absurd, false, metaphysical or whatever you want. Therefore, he has to take into account what the believer says. I don't know how else atheism could be defined.

That's why what theists believe "has relevance" for atheists. If you are thinking of another kind of relevance, that is not what I have said.
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 29th September 2019, 05:06 AM   #317
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The word project is commonly used to designate the goals that a person sets in their life. There are partial goals, such as getting a job or winning a game of petanque. But it is also commonly assumed that I have some general goals that govern my life. Indeed, one can speak of a philosophy of life, if we include in it the essential question of what I can expect from my life and what I should do with it. But the idea of philosophy of life is limited to the conscious. What I advocate here is that the life project has an important unconscious component. (Not to mention that to pronounce the word philosophy in this forum is to open the box of thunder and fury.)
I'll be honest. I haven't a scooby what you're talking about.

Sounds like you're overthinking a whole load of nothing.
JesseCuster 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 29th September 2019, 06:33 AM   #318
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
"All you are saying is that [some] atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our [their] lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives" [in many respects and similar in other].

Now, yes. This is what I am saying.
"their"? You don't include yourself?

Also, perhaps you could have said this in the first place instead of couching it in confusing language about "nausea", "meaning" and "projects".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 29th September 2019, 06:40 AM   #319
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
When you said "nausea" I thought you meant it in the Sartre sense as a sense of existential anxiety about the absurdity of life.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 29th September 2019, 06:43 AM   #320
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,902
Sure, atheists probably make all sorts of mistakes when reasoning about our lives. And it is quite likely that we make different kinds of mistakes to those made by theists.

After all we are an imperfect result of a long haphazard process of biological and cultural evolution. It would be more surprising if any of us didn't make mistakes when reasoning about our own lives.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 11:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.