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
05-02-2017, 04:21 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 04:27 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:03 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 03:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A question was asked:
Would the universe be significantly different should there be significant variations in above mentioned constants.

Based on the research done by Martin Rees the answer is a resounding Yes.
Sure, but is it possible for these constants to be any different?

And even if it were, if we assume there are an infinite different universes then we have no problems with infinitesimal probibilities.

Really, all we know is that we do have a universe capable of developing and supporting life. It is possible and it has happened. We don't know why and we aren't assuming anything about why or how.
It does not make sense to rule out the possibility of natural causes.
Entropic means:
"Having a tendency to change from a state of order to a state of disorder" yourdictionary.com

Which is why I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The answer to your question of "Is it possible for the universe to be any different?" is that it is very unlikely based on the laws of Physics.

Entropic causes would require a wide range of variations for the formation of the universe to occur, but the laws of Physics do not allow for this. Therefore, it is safe to say:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 04:27 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:03 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, but is it possible for these constants to be any different?

And even if it were, if we assume there are an infinite different universes then we have no problems with infinitesimal probibilities.

Really, all we know is that we do have a universe capable of developing and supporting life. It is possible and it has happened. We don't know why and we aren't assuming anything about why or how.
It does not make sense to rule out the possibility of natural causes.
Entropic means:


Which is why I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The answer to your question of "Is it possible for the universe to be any different?" is that it is very unlikely based on the laws of Physics.

Entropic causes would require a wide range of variations for the formation of the universe to occur, but the laws of Physics do not allow for this. Therefore, it is safe to say:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
I'm not sure at all what is meant by Entropic causes.
What is an example of a non entropic cause?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 04:41 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:27 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Entropic means:


Which is why I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The answer to your question of "Is it possible for the universe to be any different?" is that it is very unlikely based on the laws of Physics.

Entropic causes would require a wide range of variations for the formation of the universe to occur, but the laws of Physics do not allow for this. Therefore, it is safe to say:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."
I'm not sure at all what is meant by Entropic causes.
What is an example of a non entropic cause?
yourdictionary.com
The definition of entropic is having a tendency to change from a state of order to a state of disorder.

A none entropic cause of the Universe would have a tendency to change from a state of disorder to a state of order which is exactly what we observe.

Hence I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The fine tuning argument states that any system brought about by none entropic causation must have an intelligent designer.

There is a reason why Atheist debaters consider this the strongest argument on behalf of Theism, but it's not actual proof for the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 04:44 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hence I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The fine tuning argument states that any system brought about by none entropic causation must have an intelligent designer.

There is a reason why Atheist debaters consider this the strongest argument on behalf of Theism.
It's not actual proof for the existence of God.
Oh, ok, the process of going from low entropy to high entropy.
Yeah it is a bit of a mystery as to why we have such low entropy, rather than being in a state of heat death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 04:48 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hence I made the statement:
"It is statistically improbable that the current universe is the result of purely entropic causes based on current data."

The fine tuning argument states that any system brought about by none entropic causation must have an intelligent designer.

There is a reason why Atheist debaters consider this the strongest argument on behalf of Theism.
It's not actual proof for the existence of God.
Oh, ok, the process of going from low entropy to high entropy.
Yeah it is a bit of a mystery as to why we have such low entropy, rather than being in a state of heat death.
I saw you spoke about natural causation a few posts back.
Let me reiterate:
Science does not rule out the possibility of natural causation & neither did I.
It's just that the statistics show it is less likely that it has happened due to natural causation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:25 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 06:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Yes, which indicates that the person asserting the existence of the dragon is making their dragon fit the data. i.e. that they're lying.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:25 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:48 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Oh, ok, the process of going from low entropy to high entropy.
Yeah it is a bit of a mystery as to why we have such low entropy, rather than being in a state of heat death.
I saw you spoke about natural causation a few posts back.
Let me reiterate:
Science does not rule out the possibility of natural causation & neither did I.
It's just that the statistics show it is less likely that it has happened due to natural causation.

What statistics?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:28 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:48 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I saw you spoke about natural causation a few posts back.
Let me reiterate:
Science does not rule out the possibility of natural causation & neither did I.
It's just that the statistics show it is less likely that it has happened due to natural causation.

What statistics?
Can you scroll back 10 pages? I reposted them 4 times.
It's getting old.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:39 AM
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(04-02-2017 03:32 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except that they are.

All non-deistic theists make claims about their god's characteristics, behaviors, and methods of intervention in this universe. These claims are demonstrably false, and we can reasonably conclude that these gods do not exist.

Except they are.

Pretty much every theist believes their God is immaterial, so requests by atheist for material evidence of his being, like we might ask for Bigfoot do not apply. And keep your strawman about intervention at home, because this point has nothing to do with how God interacts with the world.

Quote:Literally all evidence we have indicates that this is the case.

lol, if that was the case than atheism would be a position based on evidence, rather than a lack of evidence. Atheism would no longer need to be a lack of belief, but rather be a belief that god does not exist. If that were the case atheist would finally have a burden of proof, an affirming position of their own in contrast to theism, rather than reminding me each and every time how they don't have one. So quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:My atheism doesn't demand anything. Atheism is the conclusion, not the foundation.

Are you speaking for all atheists now? Atheism is position derived by a variety of culture, historical, and environmental factors. Pretty much every atheist I personally know was driven to disbelief by some sort of dislodging life event, like the girl they thought they were gonna marry breaking up with them. Where they lost their previous sense of place in the world, and imagine life as a whole as bewildered and lost as they are. It resulted for them as a result of some identity crisis. This may or may not be true for you, but keep that in mind next time you think of making universal declarations for atheism.

Atheism has some clear demographic distinctions, appealing more to whites than non-whites, more to males, than females, etc... so there's more going on than your silly belief of it being a conclusion. It's become an identity, a cherished identity in fact, one that plenty of atheists feel they should be proud of, wear pins for, find community with etc. And formed the way every other identity forms.

Quote:And I don't see an illusion. I don't see anything at all. I have no sense whatsoever that we are part of a "created order" or have "moral purposes". Do not attempt to project your worldview onto others. Not everyone believes the same thing that you do.

If you don't see anything at all, then you don't see anything when it comes to the evidence you appealed to earlier. You look at it all and see nothing, and not a counter position.

Quote:I believe this" is not an argument. It is not evidence. It is nothing but your own belief, which counts for exactly nothing when it comes to determining what is actually true.

Except for each us, determining what's true is our own personal task. All you have is your own beliefs, and those that agree with them. We have to interpret and make sense of the world our selves, through own life experiences and observations, in the messy, non-linear thought patterns of biological creatures. You may not want to be a messy biological creature, like the rest of us, and desire to be that cleanly formed objectively composed creature of your dreams, but that's just a fantasy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
05-02-2017, 06:05 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 10:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You are a very, very silly person.

We know that unicorns do not exist. Anyone trying to hold any sort of position to the contrary is just playing silly buggers with the definition of "know" that render it completely worthless.

I am not interested in word games.
Where is your evidence for the non existence of unicorns?

I think perhaps you fail to understand that you can't prove a negative. This is why the burdon of proof is on the proponent rather than on us.
It's simple logic really.

There is nothing scary about not being able to prove something doesn't exist. We simply don't have to.
Nothing scary about lacking belief, we don't have to take a position of believing the opposite. It doesn't mean we are humming and haaaing about it, it doesn't mean we are sitting on the fence or thinking that the thing is possible.

(04-02-2017 10:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...until the point that the dragon is defined as undetectable by any means, yes. That is the entire point of the question which you repeatedly and entirely failed to answer throughout the entire previous thread:

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?
It's an irrelevant question. It is a feable attempt to create a strawman of the position of theists. Feable and non logical. Theists (not including deists) believe that their god interacts at times of its choosing. So they believe there is a big difference between a god and no god at all. Your strawman is ridiculous to say the least.

(04-02-2017 10:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The only coherent answer...
The only coherent approach is not to build this silly strawman. It means nothing to theists.

It is not a straw man. Theists may believe that their god interacts, but they have no evidence of said interaction. Zip. Nada.

The theists' gods are garage dragons.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: