IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 4th April 2018, 08:22 PM   #41
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Well, now I'm curious. How many people have you converted to atheism with this method?
Why do you assume my purpose is to convert people to atheism?

Besides, people don't convert to atheism, they revert to atheism (it's the default position of all humans).
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 4th April 2018 at 08:25 PM.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 08:25 PM   #42
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
What makes an invisible deity that's just hiding from us impossible?

You say it's so "according to all current knowledge", but what specific knowledge completely, totally, and utterly rules it out?

Can you prove that Zeus didn't spark the big bang and then run off to chill in the Andromeda galaxy?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 4th April 2018 at 08:32 PM.
kellyb 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 4th April 2018, 08:26 PM   #43
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why do you assume my purpose is to convert people to atheism?
How were you defining "effective"? Effective at what?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 4th April 2018, 08:31 PM   #44
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 6,332
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Why not just keep it simple? Why reason the obvious stupidity and impossibility of flying, fire breathing dragons when there’s no credible evidence such creatures even exist to begin with?
I have a strategy, a multi-pronged approach, and it certainly does involve throwing jokes out there, esp when we get a bit tipsy and we all open up. I throw in jokes about how God supposedly rested on the 7th day...."And he's STILL RESTING apparently!" and that usually gets them loose and shaking with laughter. I mention impossible things about Noah's Ark...and most importantly to me, comparing the Biblical tales to their contemporaries like that of the Sumerians or ancient Greeks, arguing that they are cut from the same cloth.

And simply dismissing those stories as pure fantasy won't get me anywhere. And they're still my friends (and my people) conditioned to believe since early childhood in a region where about 99% of the people grew up Christian. I'm not gonna do that.
Venom 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 4th April 2018, 08:56 PM   #45
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
How were you defining "effective"? Effective at what?
Well . . .
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
But if you're looking to put the onus of a paranormal claim where it belongs, then I'm finding it quite effective.
Also I've debated the "old" way so much over so many years with so many theists and other paranormal believers, that I no longer find it very interesting or entertaining. So also effective at avoiding having to repeat what I've already said countless times to those that pretty much don't want to hear it.

These days when confronted by theists and their weird beliefs I usually put the ball in their court with two "simple" questions - "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe it?". Haven't got a meaningful answer to the first question yet. When we get past the usual - "Well where do you come from then?" response, and I reply with - "What has what I believe got to do with what you believe?", they finally answer the question and say they believe in a god. I then ask them to explain what this "god" is as It's a meaningless word to me. Not only do they have great difficulty explaining what their god is, no two theists have ever given the same explanation!
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 4th April 2018 at 09:00 PM.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 09:24 PM   #46
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Oh. Well, Venom and I are talking about effectiveness regarding the topic of the thread, "Being Reasoned Out Of Religion."

I agree that saying "prove it" effectively puts the onus on the one making the claim.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 4th April 2018 at 09:39 PM.
kellyb 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 4th April 2018, 09:38 PM   #47
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Apologies to Thor 2 if I have derailed his thread.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 10:03 PM   #48
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
The actual existence of an invisible, magical god is as impossible as anything is impossible according to all current knowledge. Wild speculations of future knowledge that may prove the existence of invisible magical gods is currently moot.
The existence of god(s) is not dependent on our knowledge of them. Theism certainly isn't "impossible". If that is the gist of your conversion argument, any theist with just a passing knowledge of epistemology will laugh in your face, and rightly so.
Fudbucker 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 4th April 2018, 10:15 PM   #49
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Well . . .

Also I've debated the "old" way so much over so many years with so many theists and other paranormal believers, that I no longer find it very interesting or entertaining. So also effective at avoiding having to repeat what I've already said countless times to those that pretty much don't want to hear it.

These days when confronted by theists and their weird beliefs I usually put the ball in their court with two "simple" questions - "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe it?". Haven't got a meaningful answer to the first question yet. When we get past the usual - "Well where do you come from then?" response, and I reply with - "What has what I believe got to do with what you believe?", they finally answer the question and say they believe in a god. I then ask them to explain what this "god" is as It's a meaningless word to me. Not only do they have great difficulty explaining what their god is, no two theists have ever given the same explanation!
"Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.

...

That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...uned-for-life/

That's not some Christian wacko. Sandra Faber is an award-winning astronomer.

The theist will simply ask you to prove a multiverse of infinite universes exists, which of course you will be unable to do, and so they'll quote an authority like Faber (she's not the only scientist to have ever said that) and they'll go with the god-option.

So WHAT the theist will say is they believe in God and WHY they do is because it's either that or a humongous multiverse of different universes, and since the evidence for both is sketchy, they'll go with their intuition.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 4th April 2018 at 10:22 PM.
Fudbucker 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 4th April 2018, 10:40 PM   #50
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The existence of god(s) is not dependent on our knowledge of them. Theism certainly isn't "impossible". If that is the gist of your conversion argument, any theist with just a passing knowledge of epistemology will laugh in your face, and rightly so.
Knowledge of the existence of god(s) would be dependent on evidence that confirms (or even suggests) that gods actually exist.

Theism certainly is impossible according to all current knowledge and understanding of what is possible.

Glad to make theists happy. Is a happy theist like a happy medium?
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 4th April 2018 at 10:48 PM.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 10:53 PM   #51
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
So WHAT the theist will say is they believe in God and WHY they do is because it's either that or a humongous multiverse of different universes, and since the evidence for both is sketchy, they'll go with their intuition.
Do you agree that this is another "god of the gaps" argument?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 4th April 2018, 11:15 PM   #52
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
"Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.
...

That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...uned-for-life/

That's not some Christian wacko. Sandra Faber is an award-winning astronomer.

The theist will simply ask you to prove a multiverse of infinite universes exists, which of course you will be unable to do, and so they'll quote an authority like Faber (she's not the only scientist to have ever said that) and they'll go with the god-option.

So WHAT the theist will say is they believe in God and WHY they do is because it's either that or a humongous multiverse of different universes, and since the evidence for both is sketchy, they'll go with their intuition.
Regardless of the award winning astronomy status of Sandra Faber she is clearly wrong as she completely missed or ignored the simple and honest “We don’t know” option. I don’t claim that a multiverse or infinite Universe exists and don’t know why you assume I do. Although I would guess that the latter is most likely I have to accept “I don’t know” for now and that may always be my only honest answer.

Obviously you believe that your particular god is the creator of the Universe because you also believe the Universe had to have been created, regardless that there's no credible evidence for either. When asked who or what created your god creator however you will slither down your duplicitous special pleading “God is infinite” wormhole. Perhaps I should quote an authority like Faber (she's not the only scientist to have ever said that) and go with the no evidence for a god-creator-option. "I don't know" is currently the only honest answer anyone can give and it's certainly better than claiming unproven multiverse theories or Godidit are fact and the only options.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 4th April 2018 at 11:49 PM.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 11:30 PM   #53
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you agree that this is another "god of the gaps" argument?
No, because the universes the multiverse theory posits are causally disconnected from us. In other words, there will be, in principle, no way to verify whether one, two, or five quintillion other universes exist. A billion years down the road, we still won't know. The "gap" for theism will never shrink. It will always be a disjunction where both disjuncts have the same evidence going for them, namely none: it's either multiverse theory or god (or simulation theory). Scientists are in a debate about whether the multiverse even qualifies as a theory, since it's in principle untestable. Believing that a vast multiverse of universes exists is almost like theism.

There will also be no way to test how common life-permitting universes are. The consensus is the values of the constants have to be balanced on a "knife-edge" for complex structure to even be possible. Even supposing there is a multiverse with a humongous number of universes, what if none of those other universes are life-permitting? That would mean our universe is very special, which might have it's own implications. I suggested this in another thread, where we hypothetically found out we're the only life in the universe. What would the implications be? Profound, I think.
Fudbucker 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 4th April 2018, 11:33 PM   #54
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you agree that this is another "god of the gaps" argument?
Looks like exactly the same ole "god of the gaps" argument to me.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 11:36 PM   #55
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No, because the universes the multiverse theory posits are causally disconnected from us. In other words, there will be, in principle, no way to verify whether one, two, or five quintillion other universes exist. A billion years down the road, we still won't know. The "gap" for theism will never shrink. It will always be a disjunction where both disjuncts have the same evidence going for them, namely none: it's either multiverse theory or god (or simulation theory). Scientists are in a debate about whether the multiverse even qualifies as a theory, since it's in principle untestable. Believing that a vast multiverse of universes exists is almost like theism.

There will also be no way to test how common life-permitting universes are. The consensus is the values of the constants have to be balanced on a "knife-edge" for complex structure to even be possible. Even supposing there is a multiverse with a humongous number of universes, what if none of those other universes are life-permitting? That would mean our universe is very special, which might have it's own implications. I suggested this in another thread, where we hypothetically found out we're the only life in the universe. What would the implications be? Profound, I think.
If the multiverse theory is a load of crap it still doesn't give your god-creator belief any more credibility. It's not an either/or choice between science and god beliefs. Remove science completely there's still no credible evidence any god actually exists.

How profound would discovering life elsewhere in The Universe be? I suspect not too profound at all in relation to your god beliefs. Theism only tends to place any importance on "winners".
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 4th April 2018 at 11:47 PM.
ynot 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 4th April 2018, 11:59 PM   #56
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Regardless of the award winning astronomy status of Sandra Faber she is clearly wrong as she completely missed or ignored the simple and honest “We don’t know” option. I don’t claim that a multiverse or infinite Universe exists and don’t know why you assume I do. Although I would guess that the latter is most likely I have to accept “I don’t know” for now and that may always be my only honest answer.

Obviously you believe that your particular god is the creator of the Universe because you also believe the Universe had to have been created, regardless that there's no credible evidence for either. When asked who or what created your god creator however you will slither down your duplicitous special pleading “God is infinite” wormhole. Perhaps I should quote an authority like Faber (she's not the only scientist to have ever said that) and go with the no evidence for a god-creator-option. "I don't know" is currently the only honest answer anyone can give and it's certainly better than claiming unproven multiverse theories or Godidit are fact.
And here's where you lose the argument with the theist. The theist brings up a very credible authority (an atheist no less) to bolster their argument, and you handwave it away, relying on your incredulity based on an utterly unimpressive lack of credentials.

I don't think you've really gone up against a theist who knows their stuff. They would wipe the floor with you. As I just did. You didn't even try and counter my expert with one of your own. You did what you always accuse theists of doing: ignoring the scientists and the evidence.

In fact, I'll even formulate the argument for you, since I'm waiting for a sleeping pill to kick in:

1. Prima facie cosmological fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology that needs to be explained.
2. Coincidence does not explain prima facie fine-tuning.
3. A multiverse consisting of an extremely large number of other universes could explain prima facie fine-tuning.
4. The existence of a being capable of fine-tuning the universe could explain prima facie fine-tuning.
5. The amount of evidence that there exists a multiverse consisting of an extremely large number of other universes is the same as the amount of evidence that there exists a being capable of fine-tuning the universe.
6. Because the universes in a multiverse would be causally disconnected from each other, there would never come a time when evidence of their existence appears.
7. Therefore, (3) and (4) are equally rational explanations for prima facie fine-tuning.

That is why Faber said it's either god or a multiverse. The argument isn't perfect, which is why Faber believes in a multiverse instead of god, but it's not something you can just hand-wave away. There are real problems with asserting the existence of a huge multiverse of bazillions of other universes with no proof and no way to test whether it's true or not. Scientists are uncomfortable doing so, for obvious reasons.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th April 2018 at 12:06 AM.
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 12:27 AM   #57
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
The scientist wasn't stating that it was a scientific fact that it's either god or a multiverse. She just said she couldn't think of how else to explain it...which is exactly what the god of the gaps is. "I don't know, so goddidit".
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 12:55 AM   #58
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The scientist wasn't stating that it was a scientific fact that it's either god or a multiverse. She just said she couldn't think of how else to explain it...which is exactly what the god of the gaps is. "I don't know, so goddidit".
No, "god of the gaps" is a valid criticism when there is a lack of some scientific explanation, god is invoked as an explanation, and there is the expectation that science will eventually fill in the gaps.

If this were "god of the gaps", Faber would have said, "we don't know, but we'll figure it out eventually". Notice she didn't. Nor is she the only one to have claimed it's either the multiverse or some universe designer.

This is much different. The fine-tuning problem will not get better over time. The opposite has been true: the more we learn, the more fantastically improbable our universe seems. The gap is never going to be filled in by science. That's the problem. It really does come down to either a really large multiverse (inflation theory) or some universe designer. No other explanation makes sense and nothing else besides cosmic inflation is taken seriously anymore.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th April 2018 at 01:01 AM.
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 01:20 AM   #59
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
And here's where you lose t. . . <snip>
That self-aggrandizing rant doesn’t deserve a response.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
In fact, I'll even formulate the argument for you, since I'm waiting for a sleeping pill to kick in:

1. Prima facie cosmological fine-tuning is a problem in cosmology that needs to be explained.
So we don’t know

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
2. Coincidence does not explain prima facie fine-tuning.
Neither does belief in a god creator. Credible current science doesn’t explain fine tuning by way of coincidence. Regardless, we still don’t know.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
3. A multiverse consisting of an extremely large number of other universes could explain prima facie fine-tuning.
Given there’s no evidence of an actual multiverse, we still don’t know.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
4. The existence of a being capable of fine-tuning the universe could explain prima facie fine-tuning.
Apart from there being no credible evidence that such a being actually exists, or even could exist, such a being would create the new the problem of what fine-tuned that being. Credible explanations don't come from "could". We still don't know.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
5. The amount of evidence that there exists a multiverse consisting of an extremely large number of other universes is the same as the amount of evidence that there exists a being capable of fine-tuning the universe.
Yep, zilch for either. That just makes neither credible. We still don’t know.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
6. Because the universes in a multiverse would be causally disconnected from each other, there would never come a time when evidence of their existence appears. [
Just like there never comes a time when evidence of a god’s existence appears.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
7. Therefore, (3) and (4) are equally rational explanations for prima facie fine-tuning.
Rubbish! To qualify as being rational they would have to be supported by rational evidence of their actual existence.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That is why Faber said it's either god or a multiverse. The argument isn't perfect, which is why Faber believes in a multiverse instead of god, but it's not something you can just hand-wave away. There are real problems with asserting the existence of a huge multiverse of bazillions of other universes with no proof and no way to test whether it's true or not. Scientists are uncomfortable doing so, for obvious reasons.
There are real problems with asserting the existence of an invisible, magical creator-god with no proof and no way to test whether it's true or not. Theists are not uncomfortable doing so, for obvious belief confirmation reasons.

Lack of a scientific explanation doesn't make a paranormal belief explanation any more credible or true.

And we still don't know . . .
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 5th April 2018 at 02:09 AM.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 01:30 AM   #60
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Isn’t it truly amazing how the water of every puddle exactly fits the hole it sits in. That amazing fine-tuning can’’t possibly happen by coincidence, therefore there must be a fine-tuning god creator. But that god is my god, not your god.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 5th April 2018 at 01:36 AM.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 01:40 AM   #61
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No, "god of the gaps" is a valid criticism when there is a lack of some scientific explanation, god is invoked as an explanation, and there is the expectation that science will eventually fill in the gaps.

If this were "god of the gaps", Faber would have said, "we don't know, but we'll figure it out eventually". Notice she didn't. Nor is she the only one to have claimed it's either the multiverse or some universe designer.

This is much different. The fine-tuning problem will not get better over time. The opposite has been true: the more we learn, the more fantastically improbable our universe seems. The gap is never going to be filled in by science. That's the problem. It really does come down to either a really large multiverse (inflation theory) or some universe designer. No other explanation makes sense and nothing else besides cosmic inflation is taken seriously anymore.
Rubbish! when no credible explanation exists the only credible and honest answer is "We don't know" Has Faber not heard of evolution?
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 01:41 AM   #62
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Double post.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 5th April 2018 at 01:56 AM.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 02:10 AM   #63
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
A common belief of some atheists is you cannot reason someone out of something, (religious belief) they were not reasoned into.
I'm sure that the approach described here does work on some people. And there will be people it doesn't work on. It doesn't matter if they're Mormon, JW, Catholic or Hindu. People are different, and have different approaches.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Yeah, but... How many Australians have you met personally who really care about what is in the Bible? How many people that call themselves Christians that you know personally care whether the Bible is correct, or accurate, or consistent? Very few is my guess. Most would look to the Bible for inspiration rather than history, like they would towards Oprah.
I have known several. Many back when I was a churchgoer myself, but I also have a good friend who is very concerned about what the Bible says - she is a "worship leader" (ie. pastor) in a very progressive church (Uniting) and every week she delivers a sermon to her congregation on how to be inspired by the Bible in today's gay- and green-friendly society. She takes her material from both Old and New Testament.

They may be in a minority (I don't have numbers), but they definitely exist.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot 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 5th April 2018, 02:04 PM   #64
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No, "god of the gaps" is a valid criticism when there is a lack of some scientific explanation, god is invoked as an explanation, and there is the expectation that science will eventually fill in the gaps.

If this were "god of the gaps", Faber would have said, "we don't know, but we'll figure it out eventually". Notice she didn't. Nor is she the only one to have claimed it's either the multiverse or some universe designer.

This is much different. The fine-tuning problem will not get better over time. The opposite has been true: the more we learn, the more fantastically improbable our universe seems. The gap is never going to be filled in by science. That's the problem. It really does come down to either a really large multiverse (inflation theory) or some universe designer. No other explanation makes sense and nothing else besides cosmic inflation is taken seriously anymore.
What % of astronomers/cosmologists say it's either god or a multiverse?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 02:10 PM   #65
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
As an Australian myself, I'd say that is also true of most people who would call themselves "believers": they are also indifferent to religion. If they believe in God, they try not to let it interrupt their day.

In fact, I'd say that for all of human history, 90% or more of people have not really given a thought about religion. I know that there is this idea that everyone in the past were fundamentalists, and that gradually the Enlightenment has eroded fundamentalism so that people have become more liberal, but I'd suggest that most people have always been liberal about their beliefs, and the Enlightenment has been making more people fundamentalist.
I agree with the above but question your last sentence. Some stats I have seen show fundamentalists as a small minority. Do you have any statistics you could point me to?


Quote:
There have been times in the past where the right kind of religious beliefs have been important, but those were times when heresy was as much or more to do with politics as with religion.
Can you give us some examples of "the right kind of religious beliefs".


Quote:
Yeah, but... How many Australians have you met personally who really care about what is in the Bible? How many people that call themselves Christians that you know personally care whether the Bible is correct, or accurate, or consistent? Very few is my guess. Most would look to the Bible for inspiration rather than history, like they would towards Oprah.
No real argument with the above but do find the "inspiration" natured by the Bible dubious.

Quote:
I was an atheist until I was about 30 years old, then a theist afterwards. I started posting on atheist/theist discussion boards around 2000, and to me, a lot of Australians who have converted to atheism from theism suddenly start to believe that Christians MUST believe in the Bible, despite their own former position of not really caring what was in the Bible when they called themselves Christians.
I am most interested in the above. Did you reason your way into theism? If so how did this work?


Quote:
I can't speak for Americans and Brits, but for Australians there is a strange 'conversion' affect that goes on on atheist boards, whereby their beliefs about what constitutes 'true' Christianity becomes defined around the literal truth of the Bible, despite them themselves formerly calling themselves Christians and not caring how 'true' the Bible was in a historical or even factual sense.
Not to sure what the point is you are making here. "True Christianity" is or is not defined by Biblical text?

Oh and thanks for your detailed post.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 5th April 2018 at 02:13 PM.
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 5th April 2018, 02:31 PM   #66
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No, "god of the gaps" is a valid criticism when there is a lack of some scientific explanation, god is invoked as an explanation, and there is the expectation that science will eventually fill in the gaps.

Nope. When people believed a guy in the sky opened the firmament to create rain, that was a god of the gaps. Said god has been shrinking in scope of what it does for thousands of years, but it's still the same principal of not being able to explain something and defaulting to goddidit.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 02:58 PM   #67
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Nope. When people believed a guy in the sky opened the firmament to create rain, that was a god of the gaps. Said god has been shrinking in scope of what it does for thousands of years, but it's still the same principal of not being able to explain something and defaulting to goddidit.
No.

"God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

In the inflation theory that is the dominant in cosmology now, there is no future information that is going to be uncovered regarding the existence of other causally disconnected universes. They are, in principle, undetectable by us.
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 03:01 PM   #68
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What % of astronomers/cosmologists say it's either god or a multiverse?
I would have no idea. If you're interested in the subject, here are some good articles that mention specific astronomers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ogy-multiverse
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-u...ultiverse.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article...2500-year-war/
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 03:11 PM   #69
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No.
Yes. Regular wiki is better than rational wiki on this entry:

Quote:
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The "gaps" usage was made by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2]
In the 80's, evangelical kids were being taught to look at "god of the gaps" type arguments as "the incredible shrinking god", because even the fundies noticed the problematic trend for them there.

You can argue that this particular god of the gaps is growing, not shrinking, but it's still a god of the gaps.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 5th April 2018 at 03:14 PM.
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 03:28 PM   #70
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I would have no idea.
What if this is the consensus?

https://theconversation.com/peer-rev...ne-tuning-2540
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 04:47 PM   #71
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yes. Regular wiki is better than rational wiki on this entry:



In the 80's, evangelical kids were being taught to look at "god of the gaps" type arguments as "the incredible shrinking god", because even the fundies noticed the problematic trend for them there.

You can argue that this particular god of the gaps is growing, not shrinking, but it's still a god of the gaps.
No, it's not. It's a fallacious move of using theism as an explanation for a current unknown when there's a high probability the unknown will eventually be resolved. It's also fallacious when the positing of a god has no explanatory value or is totally ad hoc.

That's not the case here. A), evidence of these other universes will never turn up, and B) a universe designer explains the problem of fine-tuning, and C) it's not ad hoc since the possibility of a universe creator (god) has been asserted before the fine-tuning problem was ever even dreamed of.

This is my last post on this particular topic, so ask yourself, why are these smart astronomers, who should know better, saying it's either the Multiverse or god? The answer is obvious: they are aware it's not a god-of-the-gaps move, for the reasons I gave.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 5th April 2018 at 04:48 PM.
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 04:51 PM   #72
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
No.

"God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
This
What may or may not happen in the future has no bearing on the present. You can't pre-claim possible future evidence of the existence of a god with any credibility.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
In the inflation theory that is the dominant in cosmology now, there is no future information that is going to be uncovered regarding the existence of other causally disconnected universes. They are, in principle, undetectable by us.
Just like imaginary gods.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 04:55 PM   #73
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
No, it's not. It's a fallacious move of using theism as an explanation for a current unknown when there's a high probability the unknown will eventually be resolved.
You're just making that highlighted part up without understanding history of the phrase "god of the gaps". It's a Christian argument for a god of everything-is-miraculous. Poo-pooing the mysterious as "not evidence for god" is historically coming from Christians who want everyone to totally ignore science, more or less.

Do you understand that it's very recent that atheists have picked up the phrase from Christian apologetics arguments?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 04:55 PM   #74
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It's not. One of the reasons multiverse theory is so popular is it resolves the fine-tuning problem.

"This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/
Fudbucker 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 5th April 2018, 04:59 PM   #75
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
This is my last post on this particular topic, so ask yourself, why are these smart astronomers, who should know better, saying it's either the Multiverse or god? The answer is obvious: they are aware it's not a god-of-the-gaps move, for the reasons I gave.
Or the multiverse theory may be as much a load of crap as theism apparently is.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 5th April 2018 at 05:03 PM.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 05:02 PM   #76
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It's not. One of the reasons multiverse theory is so popular is it resolves the fine-tuning problem.

"This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/
Evolutionary scientists don't agree there even is any fine-tuning to be a problem.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 5th April 2018 at 05:04 PM.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 05:06 PM   #77
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
so ask yourself, why are these smart astronomers, who should know better, saying it's either the Multiverse or god? The answer is obvious: they are aware it's not a god-of-the-gaps move, for the reasons I gave.
I'm guessing they weren't raised fundamentalist christian like I was and even aware of "god of the gaps" in Christian apologetics, for one thing.

The Christian argument against using a a "god of the gaps" sort of scientific fact ("a miracle, according to science") to support faith that god exists is complex, and involves the separation of knowledge gained from the holy spirit - spiritual wisdom - from "worldly knowledge". They think - correctly - it's bad for christian faith, because you never know what science mught, maybe, some day be able to explain, and especially that it's demanding "proof" of existence from god.

From an atheist/agnostic/skeptical point of view - the god of the gaps mysteries are some of the most legit arguments FOR a god out there. "Nobody knows, you can't prove X isn't because god" is part of the core mentality agnostics generally share.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 05:09 PM   #78
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Evolutionary scientists don't agree there even is any fine-tuning to be a problem.
Physicists do seem more inclined to say there's something "too improbable" going on, but I still suspect the "it's god or a multiverse" position is a tiny minority.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 5th April 2018, 06:07 PM   #79
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Physicists do seem more inclined to say there's something "too improbable" going on, but I still suspect the "it's god or a multiverse" position is a tiny minority.
I would say theoretical physicists.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 5th April 2018, 06:28 PM   #80
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
In the inflation theory that is the dominant in cosmology now, there is no future information that is going to be uncovered regarding the existence of other causally disconnected universes. They are, in principle, undetectable by us.
Well, so what? It doesn't mean imaginary sky deities are needed to account for those other universes. "We don't know" and "we will never know" are perfectly valid states. There is no need (nor any reason) to invoke imaginary sky deities to fill in our deficiency in knowledge.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

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 08:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.