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.
Reply
Old 12th May 2011, 04:59 AM   #321
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is not a bad explanation because it is difficult to understand and explain atemporal things.

It is a bad explanation because a temporal, changeable, complex thing with a beginning is not an atemporal, changeless, simple, beginningless thing.
correct. It might just be a effect of it.
GIBHOR 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 12th May 2011, 05:01 AM   #322
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because all scientific evidence leads us to believe, the universe had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist, needs a cause, the universe included.
No, it does not, it stops around t<10-36 seconds.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 12th May 2011, 05:04 AM   #323
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
correct. It might just be a effect of it.
What might be the effect of what?

And how does that relate to what I said?
__________________
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 12th May 2011, 05:06 AM   #324
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It is said according to Borel's law, odds superior to 1 to 10^50 are unlikely to occure. Since a chance a life permitting universe to occure naturally are less than 1 to 10^220 according to Lee Smolin, or 1 to 10^500 according to M-Theory ( it actually does not really matter ), we can confidently say, chance is a bad and unlikely explanation.
Not really but please if you insist, explain how you reconcile the chances of infinity vs. infinity.

So the universe is not exactly random, or could be. But you make a whole lot of assumtions there.

"This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

But those in the puddle can not look outside, and can only make up statistics about other puddles.

So if you want to wave Smolin around you should probably read this:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...o/FineTune.pdf
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 12th May 2011, 05:12 AM   #325
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
from the book : a case of a creator

Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20
I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig's desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, `I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “
Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
Except they are seen and measured in accelerators everyday
Quote:

"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
Duh, it is caleld the vacum energy and it is partly what makes the universe expand.
Quote:

"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause.
Not nothing, yes. Possibly totally acausal.
Quote:
The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
The answer theists hate "We don't know."
Quote:

He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself.
No you don't.

That si what thesists do all the time.

The correct answer is
"We don't know"
Quote:
You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."
No you don't, "We don't know" is a valid and correct answer.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 12th May 2011, 05:13 AM   #326
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
The number of creators of universes that we have discovered so far or that we have evidence of.
0/1
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 12th May 2011, 05:15 AM   #327
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,384
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
That's not my reading. My reading is that he's judging it unlikely that it's a result of a Big Crunch, which is an entirely different sort of claim than saying it could not have been the result of a previous Big Crunch.
You are right I did, and it is just speculation.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 12th May 2011, 07:03 AM   #328
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because all scientific evidence leads us to believe, the universe had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist, needs a cause, the universe included.
That is sweet, making it so your so-called god does not have a begining you can get away without having a cause for it. Wishing it so doesn't make it so.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff 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 12th May 2011, 07:09 AM   #329
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
No.. God is of no particular gender.. although due to the sequence in which the fall occured, he has chosen to characterize himself as male in his interactions with humans. Same with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
There are no scriptures that confirm your claim, are there? You just made that up.
__________________
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 12th May 2011, 07:12 AM   #330
Mister Agenda
Illuminator
 
Mister Agenda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,139
Out of all the things that could conceivably exist acausally, a mind is way less believable than a universe.
Mister Agenda 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 12th May 2011, 07:20 AM   #331
temporalillusion
Technical Admin
 
temporalillusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada's Texas
Posts: 1,495
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Yep, sure.....

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
Of course, you'll pick quotes from Hawking that support your ideas, but you ignore work from Hawking's model that has no boundaries in space-time; no singularities.

Or Hawking's work on resolving your pet fine tuning question without multiple universes.

And you'll pick and choose quotes across decades when cosmology has changed radically in that span of time.

Many of your quotes make sense in their context, you just misuse them to draw further conclusions that aren't warranted to establish your special pleading arguments.
__________________
One man's reason that something is not reliable evidence is another man's whine about how others won't buy 3 magic beans with the family cow. - hgc
temporalillusion 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 12th May 2011, 07:32 AM   #332
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because all scientific evidence leads us to believe, the universe had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist, needs a cause, the universe included.
Something having a beginning and something beginning to exist are different concepts. Current mainstream cosmology points to a Universe with a beginning, but not necessarily one that begins to exist.

So your claim must be that everything that has a beginning must have a cause.

So what is your reasoning behind the claim?
__________________
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 12th May 2011, 07:37 AM   #333
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,273
I've never really had a good explanation by any believer in any god why the universe appearing out of nothing without purpouse and direction is utterly ridiculous, yet their god appearing in the same way, but with magical powers AND a fully functioning mind and a set of morality is perfectly reasonable.

Surely the latter is even less likely than the former? And at least we know the universe exists, whereas noone has ever proved any of the many gods believed in by humanity.
The monotheistic gods are even less credible. At least pantheons would have each other to teach themselves restraint and morality, but a single all powerful mind would have no reason to ever learn to have things like compassion, empathy or restraint.

We do not live in a nightmare world governed by the whim of an all powerful mind, which to me is a pretty good reason to be atheistic.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 12th May 2011, 07:39 AM   #334
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,521
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
0/1
Yep, that's the math I was using. Zero divided by one in all the frames of reference I can think of comes up equalling zero.
RoboTimbo 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 12th May 2011, 07:45 AM   #335
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
A god only adds another useless layer to any question.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff 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 12th May 2011, 07:51 AM   #336
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,925
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Yep, sure.....

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture
You're quote mining. Read A Brief History of Time. You will find that Hawking describes the universe as finite but unbounded. I'd like to see you find any statements by any of the above people claiming that there was ever a time when the universe didn't exist.
__________________
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 12th May 2011, 08:33 AM   #337
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
I have started an "Evidence for Theism" thread so that GIBHOR can post his arguments in favour of theism there.

The stated purpose of this thread is for positive evidence for strong atheism and that is what it should be used for.
__________________
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 12th May 2011, 08:39 AM   #338
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
that could have happened at the same instant.
So as I say, God designs the flagellum for the bacterium while simultaneously watching the living bacterium swimming about with it.

God designs mankind while simultaneously observing Neil Armstrong stepping onto the Moon.

God holds the intention to design the Tasmanian Tiger while simultaneously observing the last Tasmanian Tiger dying in a zoo.

God designs the Universe while simultaneously observing every event in the existing Universe along with observing everything He did in the Universe.

Right?
I would still be interested in hearing if you agree with the above statements with respect to your idea of what a God mind would be like.


After all you say:
Quote:
the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.
But that does not seem to answer the type of questions I have been asking.

Is the act of causing the universe to begin to exist simultaneous with the Apollo Moon landing?

Is the act of causing the universe to begin to exist simultaneous with the fall of the twin towers?

Is the act of causing the universe to begin to exist simultaneous with the collision of the Milky Way with the Andromeda Galaxy?
__________________
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; 12th May 2011 at 08:41 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 12th May 2011, 09:53 AM   #339
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


If you can, watch all 15 parts.


Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

Last edited by Paulhoff; 12th May 2011 at 09:57 AM.
Paulhoff 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 12th May 2011, 10:53 AM   #340
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Is there any scripture that supports this assertion?
I see we've come round the full yrreg circle and are talking about god's penis.
tsig 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 12th May 2011, 12:35 PM   #341
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,233
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
The stated purpose of this thread is for positive evidence for strong atheism and that is what it should be used for.
Not to be splitting hairs but GIBHOR is positive evidence for strong atheism.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 12th May 2011, 09:07 PM   #342
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Please present positive evidence strong atheism is true.
The positive evidence for strong atheism is the pathetic nature of arguments for theism:
http://youtu.be/oSjRRp_3SSI
http://youtu.be/eU-wpNOyuas
normdoering 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 13th May 2011, 06:49 AM   #343
Mister Agenda
Illuminator
 
Mister Agenda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,139
God is love.
Love is not jealous.
The lord your God is a jealous god.

Contradictory attributes, according to the Bible, God is nonexistent for the same reasons a married bachelor doesn't exist.

This myth is busted.
Mister Agenda 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 13th May 2011, 09:10 AM   #344
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
Nothing but word games are used to prove that there is a god, that doesn't count for anything unless you believe in magic.


Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff 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 13th May 2011, 09:20 AM   #345
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
There's certainly some weighty stuff involved in the subject of this thread and the related thread; much of which is in a language I do not speak, but, if you care to indluge this tyro, I will offer what I consider to be the fundamental argument used to support atheism.

If you care to, let me know what you think about it.

The fundamental argument for atheism:

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

I think that's it; in simple terms.

From my experience, the atheist believes the two premises above are true.
I don't think they are true.

Some folks believe in God.
Some don't.

For all those that don't know, God does exist.

That's usually, in my experience, what it all comes down to, and that seems to be the case in what I have seen around here.

All things considered, that may be the best that can be expected as far as the public debate is concerned; even while on a personal level there will be comings and goings regarding both positions.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 09:36 AM   #346
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,672
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
The positive evidence for strong atheism is the pathetic nature of arguments for theism:
Even if the arguments in favor of God's existence are bad, it doesn't mean that God does not exist. That's not an argument.

Originally Posted by RLBaty View Post
The fundamental argument for atheism:

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

I think that's it; in simple terms.

From my experience, the atheist believes the two premises above are true.
I don't think they are true.
Good lord...

I'm curious why you think anyone believes your first premise. Just because one is capable of performing an action, it doesn't mean that one has performed that action. What makes you believe this is a common stance among atheists.

Second, why do you deny the second premise? You think man is incapable of imagining a concept of God without the assistance of God? Why?
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 13th May 2011, 09:53 AM   #347
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,504
Word soup without anything else we call proof = a god.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff 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 13th May 2011, 09:53 AM   #348
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post

(1)

I'm curious why you (RLBaty) think anyone
believes your first premise.

(2)

Just because one is capable of performing an action,
it doesn't mean that one has performed that action.

(1)

What makes you believe this is a common stance among atheists.

(3)

Second, why do you deny the second premise?

You think man is incapable of imagining a concept
of God...
Thanks for the consideration. I'll try to be responsive to your inquiry.

(1)

My observation is that, when it comes to getting down to the fundamentals, that's what atheists have to offer. They deny that the concept/idea of God could have originated through "reason" because believing in God is NOT "reasonable".

Similarly, in denying that God is they deny that it could have been by "revelation".

That leaves "imagination" as to the origin of the idea/concept of God.

(2)

In order to claim that the idea/concept originated through imagination, one would have to have the ability to so imagine, right? That's the major premise.

I agree with your your criticism; having the abilitity to have done a thing does not establish that such a thing was done. If, however, "reason" and/or "revelation" is ruled out, as suggested, then the only conclusion is that the ability to do so was actually done.

(3)

From what I know about it, which may not pass for much, imagination does not have the power to have "originated" the idea/concept of God. I notice that your question, intentionally or by accident, changes the question. It is not about whether or not we can imagine an idea/concept of God, but whether or not some ancient savage "originated" the idea/concept of God that has evolved through the ages.

I don't think the atheist has the empirical evidence to support his claim about that ancient savage who is alleged to have originated the idea/concept of God that then evolved down to us today.

And so, as I noted:

Some believe man just "imagined" God "in the beginning".
Some don't.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 10:20 AM   #349
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,672
The majority of your previous post has nothing to do with the argument you just made. This would be a lot simpler if I just cleaned up your argument for you.

1. The concept of God is either the product of imagination, or the product of divine revelation.
2. The concept of God is not the product of divine revelation.
C. Therefor, the concept of God is the product of imagination.

This is a far better reflection of the attitudes of most atheists. It's not a very good argument though, because Premise 2 is the point of contention. Further, this argument is more in line with your above post.

Why is it so difficult to believe that man originated his own concept of God? It's not hard to see how ancient man realizes his own ability to design things, and began to wonder if other natural things (like trees ) were also designed, and if so, what would have designed them? Presumably, something very large and very powerful.

Further, if it is not the case that man can originate his own concept of God, then how do you explain the many ideas of God? Do all of these gods exist?

Further still, your defense of this is an argument from ignorance. Even if there is no indication that man came up with God on his own, it doesn't mean it never happened.
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 13th May 2011, 10:42 AM   #350
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Even if the arguments in favor of God's existence are bad, it doesn't mean that God does not exist. That's not an argument.
True. But on the other hand some of the best minds in the world have been hammering away at the problem for a couple of thousand years and come up more or less empty handed.

With any other idea we might consider that maybe it is time to give up.
__________________
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 13th May 2011, 10:47 AM   #351
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,198
Originally Posted by RLBaty View Post
Thanks for the consideration. I'll try to be responsive to your inquiry.

(1)

My observation is that, when it comes to getting down to the fundamentals, that's what atheists have to offer. They deny that the concept/idea of God could have originated through "reason" because believing in God is NOT "reasonable".

Similarly, in denying that God is they deny that it could have been by "revelation".

That leaves "imagination" as to the origin of the idea/concept of God.

(2)

In order to claim that the idea/concept originated through imagination, one would have to have the ability to so imagine, right? That's the major premise.

I agree with your your criticism; having the abilitity to have done a thing does not establish that such a thing was done. If, however, "reason" and/or "revelation" is ruled out, as suggested, then the only conclusion is that the ability to do so was actually done.

(3)

From what I know about it, which may not pass for much, imagination does not have the power to have "originated" the idea/concept of God. I notice that your question, intentionally or by accident, changes the question. It is not about whether or not we can imagine an idea/concept of God, but whether or not some ancient savage "originated" the idea/concept of God that has evolved through the ages.

I don't think the atheist has the empirical evidence to support his claim about that ancient savage who is alleged to have originated the idea/concept of God that then evolved down to us today.

And so, as I noted:

Some believe man just "imagined" God "in the beginning".
Some don't.
I think the idea of the thread is for atheists to put their positive arguments, not for people to try and guess at what those arguments might be.

If you say something like "I don't think the atheist has the empirical evidence to support his claim ..." then I want to see know which specific atheist is supposed to have claimed this and a cite so that I can read the alleged claim in his or her own words.

But if it is just what you imagine some theoretical atheist might argue, then it is a bit of a straw man.

For the record, I have never encountered an atheist making that argument. It is a new one on me.
__________________
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 13th May 2011, 10:50 AM   #352
caniswalensis
Master Poster
 
caniswalensis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,561
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Please present positive evidence strong atheism is true.
I am an atheist and I can bench press my own weight.
__________________
"...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan
caniswalensis 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 13th May 2011, 11:03 AM   #353
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Robin View Post

For the record, I have never encountered an atheist
making that argument. It is a new one on me.
You are welcome.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 11:13 AM   #354
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post

This would be a lot simpler if I just cleaned up your argument for you.

1. The concept of God is either the product of imagination, or the product of divine revelation.
2. The concept of God is not the product of divine revelation.
C. Therefor, the concept of God is the product of imagination.

This is a far better reflection of the attitudes of most atheists.

It's not a very good argument though, because Premise 2 is the point of contention.

Further, this argument is more in line with your above post.

Further still, your defense of this is an argument from ignorance. Even if there is no indication that man came up with God on his own, it doesn't mean it never happened.
I don't think you are "getting it" regarding a fundamental position, explicitly or implicitly, set forth by atheists.

Your argument leaves out the "reason" option and involves taking up a universal negative.

I think my argument stands as a more appropriate reflection of the fundamental issue, the positive position, for atheism; asserting that man could and did originate the idea/concept of God through the power of imagination.

I don't think they can make that positive affirmation stick.

Some believe it and are atheists.
Some don't and are theists.

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

Many atheists maybe don't realize that's the fundamental position behind atheism.

I'll try to get a reference for those so interested in showing that I'm hardly the first to propose such a simple approach to the problem.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 11:22 AM   #355
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,672
I still don't see what you're getting at. Can you name any atheists that agree with the argument you have proposed?

I would ask you to explain why you think your argument is an accurate representation of atheists, but the last time I did that, you explained reasoning that did not apply to your argument. I proposed an alternate argument that more accurately reflected your reasoning, but you reject it. That's fine. But you still haven't given support for either of your two premises.

Furthermore, I would not rule out the process of reason as a means to the conclusion of God's existence. Reason can be used to arrive at false conclusions. I highlighted such an example in my previous post.
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 13th May 2011, 11:24 AM   #356
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Robin View Post

...then I want to see know which specific atheist
is supposed to have claimed this and a cite so
that I can read the alleged claim in his or her own
words.
I don't know what you think about Robert Owen, but he's a fairly well known "atheist" of sorts.

In the Campbell-Owen Debate on the subject (available on-line), page 123 in my hard copy version, the following is recorded:

--------------------

"A Problem

To the Editors of the New Harmony Gazette

You think that reason cannot originate the idea of an Eternal First
Cause, or that no man could acquire such an idea by the employment
of his senses and reason--and you think correctly.

You think also that the Bible is not a supernatural revelation--not a
revelation from a Deity in any sense.

These things premised, gentlemen, I present my problem in the form
of a query again.

The Christian idea of an Eternal First Cause uncaused, or of a God, is
now in the world, and has been for ages immemorial.

You say it could not enter into the world by reason, and it did not
enter by revelation.

Now, as you are philosophers and historians, and have all the means
of knowing, How did it come into the world?"

[Mr. Owen asserts, after hearing this problem read, By imagination]

--------------------------
--------------------------

Some are, fundamentally and implicitly or explicitly, with Mr. Owen on that.
Some are with Mr. Campbell.

I don't think the fundamental problem has much changed in the 180 years since that debate.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 11:33 AM   #357
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post

But you still haven't given support for either of your two premises.

Furthermore, I would not rule out the process of reason as a means to the conclusion of God's existence.

Reason can be used to arrive at false conclusions.
I think I have given support for why the atheist position, explicitly or implicitly, claims that both of the premises in the argument I offered are true.

As to the "reason" option, I think it might be necessary to distinguish between what is "reasonable" and the use of "reason" to reach a false conclusion.

If you are conceding that it is "reasonable" to arrive at the conclusion that "God is", based solely on the natural world independent of any revelation, and that might have accounted for the origin of the idea/concept of God, that's fine with me; though I might disagree and many atheists might disagree with you.
RLBaty 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 13th May 2011, 11:38 AM   #358
Sun Countess
Appearance of intelligence
 
Sun Countess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,154
Originally Posted by RLBaty View Post
Many atheists maybe don't realize that's the fundamental position behind atheism.
Wow. I always love when theists tell me why I'm an atheist. I didn't know there was a position "behind" atheism.

I just know that all the god beliefs I've encountered seem very very silly. Belief in Yahweh is no more or less ridiculous in belief in Thor. (Excpet, duh, Thor is waaaaay hotter.)

I do believe that all god beliefs are the result of human imagination, but my beliefs didn't stem from your premise, but from the evidence. I can't understand how any theist can argue that their personal belief is somehohw qualitatively different from all the other thousands of god beliefs that they've rejected. If your god belief is really really true, what are all the other 99.99% of god beliefs the product of: Imagination, misunderstood revelation, faulty reasoning, or other?
Sun Countess 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 13th May 2011, 11:41 AM   #359
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by RLBaty View Post
There's certainly some weighty stuff involved in the subject of this thread and the related thread; much of which is in a language I do not speak, but, if you care to indluge this tyro, I will offer what I consider to be the fundamental argument used to support atheism.

If you care to, let me know what you think about it.

The fundamental argument for atheism:

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

I think that's it; in simple terms.

From my experience, the atheist believes the two premises above are true.
I don't think they are true.

Some folks believe in God.
Some don't.

For all those that don't know, God does exist.

That's usually, in my experience, what it all comes down to, and that seems to be the case in what I have seen around here.

All things considered, that may be the best that can be expected as far as the public debate is concerned; even while on a personal level there will be comings and goings regarding both positions.
with evidence you would be able to convince me of your claim.
got any?
DC 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 13th May 2011, 11:45 AM   #360
RLBaty
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Sun Countess View Post

Wow. I always love when theists tell me why I'm an atheist. I didn't know there was a position "behind" atheism.

I just know that all the god beliefs I've encountered seem very very silly. Belief in Yahweh is no more or less ridiculous in belief in Thor. (Excpet, duh, Thor is waaaaay hotter.)

I do believe that all god beliefs are the result of human imagination, but my beliefs didn't stem from your premise, but from the evidence. I can't understand how any theist can argue that their personal belief is somehohw qualitatively different from all the other thousands of god beliefs that they've rejected. If your god belief is really really true, what are all the other 99.99% of god beliefs the product of: Imagination, misunderstood revelation, faulty reasoning, or other?
Glad to help you out with that!

More to the serious point, though, I think the thread is concerned with "atheism" as opposed to any particular "atheist".

I think I have pretty well gotten down to quite appropriately representing the fundamental position regarding atheism. As I have noted, such is by explicit or implicit claims.

You explicitly state your belief is in the "imagination" source.
That's good to know. Someone here was asking about that.

As another poster has noted, it is possible that you are taking some sort of empirical evidence and reasoning to the, allegedly, false conclusion that the idea/concept of God was simply a result of some ancient savage with an overactive imagination.
RLBaty 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 12:37 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.