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
07-02-2017, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 02:49 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 12:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are the one that equates a designer to something as fictional as FSM & God.

I never did this.

You cannot read.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?)

And I was correct. You have not demonstrated that it was even possible for those values to have been anything other than what they are, let alone that they are weighted against us.

Until you can do that, you have no evidence for fine-tuning.

I mean, you still wouldn't - you'd just have the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - but that's rather beside the point right now.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I then showed you the standard model for inflation states that the (Newtonian/Quantum) laws of physics breaks down during that epoch.

And you were both wrong and going off on an irrelevant tangent. This has been explained to you many times.

"The laws of physics break down during this period" does not mean what you think it means, and even if it did, you would still not have established that it was possible for the laws, once they did come into existence, to be any different from what they are.

Not only does this "point" fail to be true, it fails to be relevant at all.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

The function y = 1/x is undefined at x = 0. It goes from undefined to defined in the "blink of an eye". This is not order out of disorder. This is what is meant when they say that "the laws of physics break down" - they do not cease to exist, but the models used to examine them cease to be capable of accurately modeling anything that happened.

I'd go into more detail, but you don't understand, and I don't care, and it still isn't relevant. It still fails to establish that the laws, in their final state, could have been anything other than what they are.

You do not understand the things that you are trying to discuss. You do not understand the terms in play. You do not understand the refutations of your "arguments", despite them being presented in simple English. You do not even understand your own posts, and continue to go off on irrelevant tangents that have nothing to do with what you are ostensibly trying to establish, then try to claim victory when those are likewise refuted.

You are a waste of time.
If a law went from being undefined to defined then system's state is different. It's not something physical you are comparing here.
You are comparing a state where no defined laws exist to a state where defined laws exist within a closed system.
Eg.
Epsilon = Undefined during inflation
Epsilon = Defined after inflation

In it's undefined state the laws can either be Ordered or Disordered
In it's defined state the laws can only be Ordered

Therefore only 2 options are left:
Ordered state to ordered state = Design
Disordered state to ordered state = Design

Design is inevitable

Are you wearing natural causation blinkers? lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 02:17 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 01:38 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 01:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That God exists, why should I believe that God doesn't exist.

Lack of evidence.

My belief that God exists, as previously indicated is based on a variety of intuitive reasonings, and like any other intuitive based thought process, it's the result of variety of stimuli, observations, and external inputs, in which the conclusion here is inferred by.

And the plethora of stimuli, observations, external inputs, etc... that lead to me to the conclusion that God exists, by definition constitute as evidence. I mean this is how biological minds work, and naturally deduce what's true.

The common suggestion here by atheists, is that we shouldn't trust our intuitive reasoning capacities, but unfortunately if this were the case would cast doubt on biological brains being able to determine whats true at all. If natural reasoning capacities can't perceive whats true, then truth would forever be an enigma.

"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
07-02-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 12:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The function y = 1/x is undefined at x = 0. It goes from undefined to defined in the "blink of an eye". This is not order out of disorder. This is what is meant when they say that "the laws of physics break down" - they do not cease to exist, but the models used to examine them cease to be capable of accurately modeling anything that happened.
You said:
"The laws of physics break down during this period" does not mean what you think it means, and even if it did, you would still not have established that it was possible for the laws, once they did come into existence, to be any different from what they are.

1. Since you seem to know better, how about you tell me what it means.

(07-02-2017 12:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The function y = 1/x is undefined at x = 0. It goes from undefined to defined in the "blink of an eye". This is not order out of disorder. This is what is meant when they say that "the laws of physics break down" - they do not cease to exist, but the models used to examine them cease to be capable of accurately modeling anything that happened.

You cannot read.

"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
07-02-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My belief that God exists, as previously indicated is based on a variety of intuitive reasonings, and like any other intuitive based thought process, it's the result of variety of stimuli, observations, and external inputs, in which the conclusion here is inferred by.

And the plethora of stimuli, observations, external inputs, etc... that lead to me to the conclusion that God exists, by definition constitute as evidence.

No, they don't.

You do not understand what the word "evidence" means any more than you understand what the phrase "null hypothesis" means.

"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
07-02-2017, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 03:14 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 02:16 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You said:
"The laws of physics break down during this period" does not mean what you think it means, and even if it did, you would still not have established that it was possible for the laws, once they did come into existence, to be any different from what they are.

1. Since you seem to know better, how about you tell me what it means.

(07-02-2017 12:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The function y = 1/x is undefined at x = 0. It goes from undefined to defined in the "blink of an eye". This is not order out of disorder. This is what is meant when they say that "the laws of physics break down" - they do not cease to exist, but the models used to examine them cease to be capable of accurately modeling anything that happened.

You cannot read.

If a law went from being undefined to defined, then the system's state is different. It's not something physical you are comparing here.
You are comparing a state where no defined laws exist to a state where defined laws exist within a closed system.
Eg.
Epsilon = Undefined during inflation
Epsilon = Defined after inflation

In it's undefined state the laws can either be Ordered or Disordered
In it's defined state the laws can only be Ordered

Therefore only 2 options are left:
Ordered state to ordered state = Design
Disordered state to ordered state = Design

Design is inevitable

Are you wearing natural causation blinkers? lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 03:01 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a law went from being undefined to defined then system's state is different.

And yet the function, or law if you like, is the same.

y = 1 when x = 1 for the system y = 1/x. y=[undefined] when x = 0, but the function remains y = 1/x.

And again, even if this were not true, it wouldn't matter, because all you would have demonstrated is that the laws once did not exist, and then did. You would still not have demonstrated that it was possible for them to be anything else.

You do not understand the topics you are attempting to discuss, you cannot read at the level required to respond coherently to the points raised in response to you, and you do not understand the basic rules of logic.

"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
07-02-2017, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 03:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a law went from being undefined to defined then system's state is different.

Our understanding of the system state could be what's changed.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My belief that God exists, as previously indicated is based on a variety of intuitive reasonings, and like any other intuitive based thought process, it's the result of variety of stimuli, observations, and external inputs, in which the conclusion here is inferred by.

And the plethora of stimuli, observations, external inputs, etc... that lead to me to the conclusion that God exists, by definition constitute as evidence. I mean this is how biological minds work, and naturally deduce what's true.

The common suggestion here by atheists, is that we shouldn't trust our intuitive reasoning capacities, but unfortunately if this were the case would cast doubt on biological brains being able to determine whats true at all. If natural reasoning capacities can't perceive whats true, then truth would forever be an enigma.
Your method of discovery is based on a sample set of one. You have no obligation to document your reasoning, your hypothesis, your endeavors to distinguish between competing hypothesis.

The scientific method, can measures to deal with and counter personal biases, it requires documentation, hypothesis, accounting for alternatives, listing of assumptions, references to other works, peer review, challenges to the data and reasoning.

In your method each person holds their own view of Truth.
In the scientific method there is a collective view of truth which remains falsifiable should new information come available.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 03:20 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My belief that God exists, as previously indicated is based on a variety of intuitive reasonings, and like any other intuitive based thought process, it's the result of variety of stimuli, observations, and external inputs, in which the conclusion here is inferred by.

And the plethora of stimuli, observations, external inputs, etc... that lead to me to the conclusion that God exists, by definition constitute as evidence.

No, they don't.

According to the broad definition of evidence, it is.

Evidence: Signs or indications of something.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. -wikipedia


Quote:You do not understand what the word "evidence" means any more than you understand what the phrase "null hypothesis" means.

No, you just want to play semantics. What I understand is that atheists, have their own communal understanding of commonly used terms like evidence, uniquely defined by groups like this. In fact what you get is a circus of atheists, who go even as far as suggesting that other disciples like history that use the term evidence, are supposedly not using it correctly either. Your criticism here is more politically driven, more driven by the value you place on the term, then what the term actually means here.

In fact, if this was not evidence, then pretty much every intuitive reason driven conclusion, as the result of such external inputs, which make up the bulk of our everyday beliefs, whether it be the position that my wife if faithful, that my parents are my biological ones, etc..... would be non-evidence based positions.

"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
07-02-2017, 03:27 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 02:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, they don't.

According to the broad definition of evidence, it is.

You can present anything you like and call it evidence, but only those parts of it that actually support your assertion are actually evidence.

You have none.

(07-02-2017 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You do not understand what the word "evidence" means any more than you understand what the phrase "null hypothesis" means.

No, you just want to play semantics.


Making it plain that you are mishandling terms in an attempt to mask the fact that you have no actual support for your assertions is anything but semantics.

(07-02-2017 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I understand is that atheists, have their own communal understanding of commonly used terms like evidence, uniquely defined by groups like this. In fact what you get is a circus of atheists, who go even as far as suggesting that other disciples like history that use the term evidence, are supposedly not using it correctly either. Your criticism here is more politically driven, more driven by the value you place on the term, then what the term actually means here.

I have no interest in your armchair psychology. You do not have even the most basic understanding of what my position is, let alone why I hold it.

(07-02-2017 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact, if this was not evidence, then pretty much every intuitive reason driven conclusion, as the result of such external inputs, which make up the bulk of our everyday beliefs, whether it be the position that my wife if faithful, that my parents are my biological ones, etc..... would be non-evidence based positions.

Those positions can be supported with evidence. Presumably, you have this evidence - because it is trivially easy to produce - and that is why you believe these things. If you didn't, then yes, you would be silly for believing them.

You have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: