Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 04:24 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 02:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem with this argument in relation to gods is that you are claiming to know where the evidence should be.

Special pleading. You could make the same statement for leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.
Yes, the god claims are the same as leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.

(04-02-2017 03:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  -they try to make their god into a deist garage dragon, natch.
And all that is meant by the "garage dragon" is that the claim is insufficiently formulated to evaluate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 02:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Dead things don't resurrect. (Water bear rebuttal)
Dead things don't come back to life after long periods of time (water bear rebuttal)
Dead things decompose. (water bear rebuttal)

If a water bear died in the vacuum of space it would not decompose due to lack of oxygen.
Define dead please.

I don't know much about the water bear.
Why doesn't it decompose?

Looking at wikipedia

Quote:Tardigrades are one of the few groups of species that are capable of reversibly suspending their metabolism and going into a state of cryptobiosis. Many species of tardigrade can survive in a dehydrated state up to five years, or in exceptional cases longer.[33] Depending on the environment, they may enter this state via anhydrobiosis, cryobiosis, osmobiosis, or anoxybiosis. While in this state, their metabolism lowers to less than 0.01% of normal and their water content can drop to 1% of normal.[9] Their ability to remain desiccated for such long periods is largely dependent on the high levels of the nonreducing sugar trehalose, which protects their membranes. Their DNA is further protected from radiation by a protein called "Dsup" (short for damage suppressor).[34][35] In this cryptobiotic state, the tardigrade is known as a tun.
It seems that they can go into a state of 0.01% of normal metabolism. but this isn't 0 metabolism. They are still alive, certainly not dead.


I would term dead as being in a state where the body decomposes. If mechanisms within the body are actively preventing it from decomposing then it is alive.
You could just quote the dictionary or wiki or something more authoritative on the matter
What do you mean by 0.01% of normal metabolism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 04:36 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 04:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't know much about the water bear.
Why doesn't it decompose?

Looking at wikipedia

It seems that they can go into a state of 0.01% of normal metabolism. but this isn't 0 metabolism. They are still alive, certainly not dead.


I would term dead as being in a state where the body decomposes. If mechanisms within the body are actively preventing it from decomposing then it is alive.
You could just quote the dictionary or wiki or something more authoritative on the matter
What do you mean by 0.01% of normal metabolism?
It means that the body is still functioning, still burning fuel, still attacking pathogens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
04-02-2017, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 04:58 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 04:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You could just quote the dictionary or wiki or something more authoritative on the matter
What do you mean by 0.01% of normal metabolism?
It means that the body is still functioning, still burning fuel, still attacking pathogens.

Why use 0.01% in your explanation? How did you arrive at that figure?

You said:
"I would term dead as being in a state where the body decomposes. If mechanisms within the body are actively preventing it from decomposing then it is alive."
In the vacuum of space a body that was once alive cannot decompose. This is because of a lack of oxygen.
The water bear can die in space without going into decomposition.
How can you tell the difference between a dead water bear and an alive one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 05:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why use 0.01% in your explanation? How did you arrive at that figure?

They only say that because of the market panic that would ensue from a run on moss piglet juice. Actually, why hasn't some entrepreneurial young man (you know who you are) already started marketing it to vulnerable old people as the elixir of life? Pretty much all you'd have to do is go out and grab some moss and put it in jars 'cause them little fuckers have already overrun the planet and are just prudently preparing for the inevitable when we wipe ourselves out. Nuclear blast, pffft, you'll have to do better than that.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 06:32 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 04:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It means that the body is still functioning, still burning fuel, still attacking pathogens.

Why use 0.01% in your explanation? How did you arrive at that figure?

You said:
"I would term dead as being in a state where the body decomposes. If mechanisms within the body are actively preventing it from decomposing then it is alive."
In the vacuum of space a body that was once alive cannot decompose. This is because of a lack of oxygen.
The water bear can die in space without going into decomposition.
How can you tell the difference between a dead water bear and an alive one?
I'm no water bear expert.

The percentage figure was from Wikipedea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Go to the link then search for 0.01%


The issue of being dead is that your body no longer protects itself from decomposition.
When your body decomposes, it is irreversible damage. Given all the damage, it is impossible to come back to animated life.

From a Christian perspective they assume the soul leaves the body and goes somewhere (heaven or hell perhaps) and they think that if you come back alive then your soul has gone to heaven and then come back and they think this is proof that there is a heaven.
They think this is what happened to Jesus. They don't dwell on the issue of decomposition of the body.

A human body in space would not be attacked by airborne pathogens but of course would be destroyed by the extreme temperatures and the radiation. I'm not sure if pathogens within the body would be able to live long enough to do damage.
I'm not sure what would happen to the water bear, but it seems perhaps it doesn't die straight away, perhaps still has a very small metabolism.

I'm more interested in the decomposition of the body rather than the idea that the "soul" or "mind" or brain stops functioning.

In the Jesus case it was the idea that the body was dead rather than preserved. It was pre-scientific simple thinking behind that imaginative story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As I said, Shane, you have not even established that it was possible for the universal constants to have been anything other than what they are, designed or otherwise. You can't claim that there is evidence fine-tuning when you have no idea if it was even possible for anything to be tuned at all.

That's like saying:
"The lack of evidence that none-black ravens exist means you cannot say all known Ravens are black."

That sentence doesn't even parse. I'd ask you for clarification, but you don't even know what you're trying to say here, and I guarantee that it isn't in any way a coherent response to my post.

(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You completely misunderstand why I used the words "based on current data"

I understand fully that you don't actually understand what the current data indicates, but you feel the need to say "based on current data" to try and pretend that you do. But feel free to continue to delude yourself, if it helps you feel better.

(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As in:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
The above statement is a factual statement.

It's really not, for reasons I explained before.

Your entire post just comes down to "nuh-uh" and utterly fails to address, in any way, the issue that you don't even know that it is possible for the universe to have been any other way. "Statistically improbable" doesn't enter into the equation unless you can demonstrate that probability was a factor.

You can't, so fine-tuning is a complete non-starter. Your refusal to accept this changes exactly nothing.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-02-2017, 06:39 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 04:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Special pleading. You could make the same statement for leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.

Yes, the god claims are the same as leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.

And yet you maintain that we cannot know that they do not exist.

(04-02-2017 04:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  -they try to make their god into a deist garage dragon, natch.
And all that is meant by the "garage dragon" is that the claim is insufficiently formulated to evaluate.

We had an entire thread about this previously. I am not interested in repeating it, because you have long since established that you do not understand what the term "garage dragon" means or what its implications are. Anyone who is interested can follow that link.

In a nutshell: "garage dragon" is a term coined by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World, and refers to an entity which is defined as undetectable. The point of the passage in question is that, since the garage dragon is defined as undetectable, it therefore has no properties, and therefore does not exist.

Either a god is deistic (or otherwise described as fundamentally undetectable), in which case it is a garage dragon and does not exist, or it has some defined properties. In the latter case, we can conclude that it does not exist, in the same way that we know that unicorns, fairies, wizards, and so on do not exist.

In both cases, we know that there is no god.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
04-02-2017, 06:52 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 06:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 04:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, the god claims are the same as leprechauns, wizards, unicorns, or Atlantis.

And yet you maintain that we cannot know that they do not exist.
Yes, exactly

(04-02-2017 06:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 04:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And all that is meant by the "garage dragon" is that the claim is insufficiently formulated to evaluate.

We had an entire thread about this previously. I am not interested in repeating it, because you have long since established that you do not understand what the term "garage dragon" means or what its implications are. Anyone who is interested can follow that link.
I understand what it means, I have read the book. You interpret it vastly differently than I do. Carl does not make a case for the non existence of god. He is highlighting that some claims change because the proponent keeps adding and altering their claim especially when the claim at first glance seems falsifiable.


(04-02-2017 06:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In a nutshell: "garage dragon" is a term coined by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World, and refers to an entity which is defined as undetectable. The point of the passage in question is that, since the garage dragon is defined as undetectable, it therefore has no properties, and therefore does not exist.
Well, that is an alternative fact.
The story starts off with a firebreathing dragon.
Upon investigation and discovery of seemingly falsifying facts the claim changes e.g. the dragon becomes invisible, the fire becomes heatless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2017, 07:06 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 07:41 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 06:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's like saying:
"The lack of evidence that none-black ravens exist means you cannot say all known Ravens are black."

That sentence doesn't even parse. I'd ask you for clarification, but you don't even know what you're trying to say here, and I guarantee that it isn't in any way a coherent response to my post.

(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You completely misunderstand why I used the words "based on current data"

I understand fully that you don't actually understand what the current data indicates, but you feel the need to say "based on current data" to try and pretend that you do. But feel free to continue to delude yourself, if it helps you feel better.

(04-02-2017 03:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As in:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
The above statement is a factual statement.

It's really not, for reasons I explained before.

Your entire post just comes down to "nuh-uh" and utterly fails to address, in any way, the issue that you don't even know that it is possible for the universe to have been any other way. "Statistically improbable" doesn't enter into the equation unless you can demonstrate that probability was a factor.

You can't, so fine-tuning is a complete non-starter. Your refusal to accept this changes exactly nothing.
You seem to think we are comparing "the way the current universe is vs some other way it can be."
This is NOT what we are comparing & neither is Martin Rees.

We are comparing (based on current scientific data):
The chance that it happened at all vs it not happening at all.
The probability for it happening at all is infinitesimally less likely than it not happening.

If you honestly think the information he has given does not say that then I advise you to read it again.
Here, I'll summarize it for you:

1. If the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
2. If the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.
3. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolve.
4. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.
5. If the cosmological constant of 10−122 were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form..
6. If the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime were 2 or 4 instead of 3 life could not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: