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
06-02-2017, 10:49 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Even deists believe their god interacted once to create the universe, just because it no longer interacts that isn't proof that it never did.

And either this interaction is, in theory, detectable, in which case we can establish that it does not exist, or it is not, in which case it is a garage dragon, and does not exist by definition.

(06-02-2017 10:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I can see why religion branches off into different directions and holy wars ensue. when you can't ask the author to clarify you are going to have arguments with people interpreting things.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, while you are demonstrably missing the point of the passage, it doesn't actually matter. The point of the garage dragon as it is being posited here does not depend on whether or not it was Sagan's original intent.

It was, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. You just insist on saying "you can't use it that way because that wasn't the original intent" rather than actually dealing with the argument as presented.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:02 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't watch it, did you. No

You couldn't have because the point is explicitly stated and it is not what you say it is.

We did go over this point quite a lot in the other thread. I suppose it's too much to hope that he would actually read the passage now.

"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
06-02-2017, 11:41 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've read it, and you missed it.

Let's find out if anyone here agrees with you. My money says no one does. Except maybe Tomasia, but he's also a moron.
Try Rational Wiki
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 01:50 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It was, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. You just insist on saying "you can't use it that way because that wasn't the original intent"

That's not my argument at all, where did you get that from?

My point is, the way you present the "garage dragon" is in an unusable form because no-one makes a garage dragon claim. If you are suggesting that theists do this then you are straw manning. It is not a position that they hold.

Also, just because you can't find evidence for the existence of something, it doesn't mean that the something doesn't exist.
Just because the claimant isn't providing verifiable criteria, it doesn't mean that their claim is false. All it means is that their claim is insufficient to evaluate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 01:57 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 01:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Also, just because you can't find evidence for the existence of something, it doesn't mean that the something doesn't exist.

[Image: yeti.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 02:35 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You didn't watch it, did you. No

You couldn't have because the point is explicitly stated and it is not what you say it is.
What do you think it means when he concludes
"Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data..."

Is he telling us that he has proven the dragon doesn't exist?
OR
Is he telling us that we are to reject the hypothesis rather than the dragon itself?

By my understanding
The hypothesis is the claim. The claim is invalid and is to be rejected. The thing that is the conclusion of the claim isn't to be accepted or rejected, it isn't proven true and it isn't proven false. It cannot be assessed as the claim is insufficient for evaluation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
07-02-2017, 02:44 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  we can go through each individual author's claimed version of said fictional entity and conclude that they do not exist individually.
Even that doesn't make any sense. Non of the fiction authors might be correct. They don't hold the definitive definition of what a unicorn or vampire actually is.

We have no idea what one is. Sure we have many fantasy stories about things called "unicorns" or "vampires", but in most (perhaps all) of those cases the authors are imaginatively and knowlingly coming up with fantasy stories. They aren't biologists, or historians or investigators. Why on earth would you go find a book in the fiction area of a library and take its definition of a creature as a definitive definition?

Why would you do that? It makes no logical sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 05:21 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 08:11 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 06:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 05:09 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What you claim is that randomness and design are not mutually exclusive.

You cannot read.

There is nothing else to be said. You simply are incapable of reading for comprehension. That statement, whether I grant it as true or not, is entirely unrelated to any sort of point that I made in the post you are ostensibly responding to.

You lack the cognitive ability to actually participate in this discussion, Shane. Leave, and come back when you have learned to pay attention to what is said to you.
You are the one that equates a designer to something as fictional as FSM & God.
As far as incoherence is concerned your statement needs to be addressed. Come back when you stop using logical fallacies to prove your points.

You lack the cognitive ability to refute any of my points.

When I said the statistics show improbability, that the universal constants are the way they are, you reject that claim on the grounds that "it has never been any other way for us to determine a statistic." (compare laws with other laws?)

I then showed you the standard model for inflation states that the (Newtonian/Quantum) laws of physics breaks down during that epoch.
How clear can this be? The then universe is clearly different by that statement (within the realm of science's best bet). The laws do not apply during this epoch as far as science can tell.
Physicists have applied the laws based on the standard model of inflation & it does not work during that epoch.
This is simple logic.
THE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT


All I am saying is:
If the laws go from a state of incomprehensible to comprehensible in the "blink of an eye" (within a closed system) it shows order out of disorder.
This statistic is not tangible evidence or empirical evidence because Newtonian laws aren't tangible. In fact this whole argument is centered around laws, probability & philosophical science.
If you are going to change this to an argument over material science & empirical evidence then I have nothing to bring to the table.
If you challenge a philosophical argument on the grounds of empiricism it's no longer a philosophical argument.
The standard model for inflation is not backed by empirical evidence, but you don't hear Physicist shouting "it's wrong" due to a lack of empirical evidence.

I refuted the foundation of your argument by providing you the very thing you said I couldn't provide. I agree it's not proven science, but it is the standard model (aka science best bet).

The argument has long since past that stage. No one has countered the above argument. If you can, please do it.

This is where we are in the debate:
Someone said none randomness within a closed system does not equal design.

My counter argument is:
When has anything not random been the cause of something other than design?
I can give instances where none random causation proves design. Can you give evidence to the contrary?

Bear in mind I am not arguing an "IS" here. I am arguing a probability.
The probability that an early cause of the current universe is design.

If any Theist wants to use my argument to support Theism they can't.
This is because random causation is not ruled out as the cause of a Designer.
Hence I am still Agnostic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 05:26 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?



NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 09:46 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So you don't understand what "null hypothesis" means, then, or how it is determined. Thanks for clearing that up.

It’s you who fails to understand the point. You’re formulating the scenario here as an explanation, in comparison to a mere rejection of that explanation, i.e an atheism that's merely a lack of belief in theism. Where as I’m speaking of a scenario of one explanation in comparison to an alternative atheistic position, such as physicalism, or that we’re a cosmic fluke, etc… We can easily switch roles on the null hypothesis here with an alternative atheistic explanation, where I just just reject it, without positing an alternative. I.E. a theists who merely lacks a belief in atheistic explanations of the universe. That was the point of my example. A point indicated by the redditors example as well.

Quote:This fails to differentiate between not accepting a hypothesis and actively rejecting a hypothesis as false.

You’re the one failing to differentiate, that I’m not speaking of an atheistic position which is merely rejecting a the God hypothesis as false, but an atheistic position that replaces it with a competing explanation of it’s own, such as a cosmic fluke.

(06-02-2017 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The totality of all these things, of all the facts, evidence, etc.. doesn’t support that we’re some cosmic fluke, or a cosmic puddle.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn’t

(06-02-2017 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That’s your own personal ontological interpretation.

No, it isn’t.

Yes, it is. If you learned to not speak of yourself in third person, you might have figured this out a long time ago.

(06-02-2017 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The fact that nature at all, has the properties it does, becomes what it’s able to form into given enough time and space, is evidence of intention.

No, it isn’t

Yes, is it.

Quote:Well, no. It isn't. It's the null hypothesis, because it posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities not in evidence. It has met the burden of proof.

The position that we’re a cosmic fluke, is not a null hypothesis. Which is evidence by the mere fact, that someone can use that as a hypothesis, and one can reject it without offering an alternative explanation. That I can merely lack a belief that it is a cosmic fluke. A cosmic fluke is an alternative explanation. It’s the equivalent of replacing a ship building company, with a claim that it the ship came to by unintional forces, a fluke creation, etc..

Quote:
(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My position here stems from a casual intuitive chain of reasoning, so intuitive that’s a near universal, observed in young children even.

"Intuitive" does not mean "correct". "Intuitive" does not even begin to imply "correct". Unless you can actually demonstrate that it is true, no one gives a damn what you do or do not intuit.

A position based on intuitive reasoning, may be false, but it wouldn’t be comparable to a belief in a invisible garage dragon. Because no intuitive reasoning would lead to such a conclusion. The reasoning is the demonstration that it’s true, at least for the person holding it.

Quote:No, Tom. What we have here is you attempting to say "truth is relative and my unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs are as valid as any rational and evidence-based conclusions", in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

The beliefs I stated here, are justified, justifiable, rational, and evidence based. It may be your personal opinion that it’s not, but I trust my abilities as arbiter here, more so than yours, which just seems a bit convoluted and confused. And I don’t think truth is relative. I think my position is actually true, and any competing position is false.

In fact there’s very little evidence for a contrary a position, hence your appeal to a null hypothesis, rather than seeing yourself as holding an alternative competing hypothesis of your own.

In fact the one thing I frequently ask atheists, is for the reasons why I should believe my position is false? Yet no one has been particularly keen on taking me up on that request, rather they tend to complain about shifting the burden of proof, etc.. But perhaps you'd like to take it up, why should I believe my position is false?

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: