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, 06:10 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

No, it isn't. We observe only local order, but the entropy of the entire universe is increasing.

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

And you are wrong; see above.

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

The fine-tuning argument is no argument at all; see above

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
05-02-2017, 06:10 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(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.

It is no mystery, we are on our way there. Give it time.

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
05-02-2017, 06:30 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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
Well said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 06:40 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

No, it isn't. We observe only local order, but the entropy of the entire universe is increasing.

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

And you are wrong; see above.

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

The fine-tuning argument is no argument at all; see above
We are speaking about entropic causes at the start of creation here.
Why did the topic suddenly jump to the entropic direction of the current universe?
How exactly does one rebut a none entropic creation statistic with current directional entropy statistics?

Are we playing one of those word games here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 06:55 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Pretty much every theist believes their God is immaterial, so requests by atheists for material evidence of his being, like we might ask for Bigfoot do not apply. [...]

LOL... how very convenient!

The force of gravity is yet to be understood, and is also immaterial. But we can observe its effects, and replicate those effects on demand.

The same cannot be said of any so-called god. Why not?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:16 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:27 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Definition of entropy
plural entropies
1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3
: chaos, disorganization, randomness

It sounds like you are going with Merriam-Webster’s definition #3.
The theist’s are being guilty of argument from incredulity. You are arguing the “puddle” analogy.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:57 AM
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 06:55 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 05:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Pretty much every theist believes their God is immaterial, so requests by atheists for material evidence of his being, like we might ask for Bigfoot do not apply. [...]

LOL... how very convenient!

The force of gravity is yet to be understood, and is also immaterial. But we can observe its effects, and replicate those effects on demand.

The same cannot be said of any so-called god. Why not?


Just more strawman to ignore. You guys must have stacks of them piled away somewhere?


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, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 11:28 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 07:16 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Definition of entropy
plural entropies
1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3
: chaos, disorganization, randomness

It sounds like you are going with Merriam-Webster’s definition #3.
The theist’s are being guilty of argument from incredulity. You are arguing the “puddle” analogy.
I agree that the Theists are arguing from incredulity if they try to correlate fine-tuning/intelligent design with some convenient description of God.
Regarding the Puddle Analogy written by Douglas Adams:
The puddle analogy presupposes that the current universe is a result of random chance/natural causation & that fine tuning adherents are seeing more into it then they should.
However!
The PRESUPPOSITIONAL puddle analogy was rebutted ages ago because it does not provide evidence for natural causation.

Martin Rees has provided statistical evidence against natural causation.

Statistics aside let's think of it logically for a second.
What is randomness?
Wiki: Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination
The very idea that the current universe follows strict laws is evidence that it is predictable & is most likely not random.
Now unlike the Theists I don't jump from none randomness to God. I already gave an alternative theory for the universe being the way it is & it has nothing to do with God.

Let me ask you a personal question if you don't mind.
If cosmologists observed a formation of Galaxies in the cosmos that formed the words "God made this" would you say this was an act of randomness?
Would you claim that until we can observe other universes we cannot infer fine tuning or intelligent design?
That's what many of you are saying here. It's tantamount to forming a new religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 03:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A question was asked:
Would the universe be SIGNIFICANTLY different should there be small variations in above mentioned constants.

No, Shane. The question that we are asking is whether or not it was even possible for there to be variations at all.

Unless you can show that it was, fine tuning is a non-starter.

"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
05-02-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Where is your evidence for the non existence of unicorns?

The complete lack of unicorns anywhere in the world.

This is not complicated.

(05-02-2017 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Yes, it is. Which is why it is so strange that you continue to fail to understand it.

The burden of proof is on those who say that unicorns exist. Until such time that any actual evidence of their existence is presented, we operate under the provisional assumption that they do not. If all possible efforts are made to demonstrate the existence of unicorns, but nothing turns up, then we have, for all intents and purposes, proven that they do not exist.

Your entire argument is just, as I have stated repeatedly already, playing games with the definition of "proof" that render it worthless in order to try and move the goalposts so far away that there may as well not be a game at all. Unless you're willing to adopt the stance that we can't prove there are no T-rexes still alive somewhere, or that we haven't sufficiently demonstrated that magic doesn't exist, then all this is just more special pleading as well.

And if you do adopt it, then, again, you're just wasting time with the most pedantic possible definitions, and no one actually gives a damn.

(05-02-2017 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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's the exact question that Sagan himself asked in the passage.

But then, you've already shown that you don't understand it, and possibly haven't read it, enough times in the other thread. I don't see why you're so determined to repeat that here.

(05-02-2017 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

In which case they fall under the "we can demonstrate that it doesn't" side of things, yes. I did say this. You are the one strawmanning here, Stevil.

Read my posts before responding, please. It will save us all a lot of time.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: