My biggest question about atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 08:36 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 08:09 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 06:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Ah, Hume's Problem of Induction, "the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy". It pretty much still remains unanswered and some seriously smart fucks have tried with varying degrees of success. It is largely ignored these days because hey science it just works bitches. We'll worry about if it stops. Tongue

(23-01-2014 06:41 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Spoken like a true pragmatist, brother. Thumbsup

Pragmatism works, everything else is pedantic. Tongue

Indeed. This level of pragmatism brings us many wonderful, and demonstrable results. Guessing and assuming hasn't proven to be as... reliable. Or even verifiable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 09:08 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(22-01-2014 05:45 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The response of "special pleading" to the cosmological argument really is non-responsive to the argument.

Incorrect.

Quote: The problem is that God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise.
That is not true. The premise is that this "gawd" even exists at all, and even more with whatever imaginary qualities you claim that it is supposed to have. But YOUR "gawd" is not even the conclusion. The cosmological argument was devised as a "proof" for the MUSLIM deity. And this "gawd" could be replaced with ANYTHING -- the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.

Quote: So, by raising "special pleading" in that case, you are not attacking any of the premises

Yes, we are attacking the premise that your "gawd" exists and exists with the qualities you claim it has.

Quote:and you are not attacking a jump in logic between the steps that take you from the premises to the conclusion.

Don't even have to.


And AGAIN: Arguments are NOT EVIDENCE. You can play your little semantic prestidigitation games all day, but you prove NOTHING AT ALL without evidence.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 09:13 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 10:34 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  As I understand it, science involves scientific facts (ie. objects fall at a certain speed and acceleration), scientific theories that constitute the widely accepted best explanation based on the scientific facts (ie. the theory of gravity) and hypotheses (theories that do no have sufficient support to be elevated to the stature of scientific theories).

You do not understand science AT ALL.

Quote:In this context, God would be classified as a hypothesis.

Hypotheses are generated based upon observable patterns of data: EVIDENCE. You have no EVIDENCE whatsoever.


Quote: The hypothesis of a creator God is based on the collection of scientific facts that exist in the universe (the existence of a universe, the evidence of the big bang, our observations of the cosmos, etc). It is a theory that explains the existence of anything at all.

Dead wrong.

Quote:A scientific hypothesis ought to be elevated to a theory if it: 1. explains the facts better than any other theory, 2. is internally consistent, and 3. is not disproven by the finding of inconsistent evidence (feel free to correct me if you think I have missed a consideration here).

I correct myself: you don't know FUCK about science.


Quote:I'm sure you will disagree, but I classify God as an explanation that is internally consistent and explains the facts better than any other theory. The only reason why I say it needs to be disproven is because it seems to satisfy #1 and #2, not because of emotion or the passage of time. Alternatively, if a theory is provided that better explains the facts or if you can demonstrate an internal inconsistency with the hypothesis then feel free to attack the God theory/hypothesis in that way.


ibid.

Quote:What I don't understand is why so many atheists treat the God theory/hypothesis any differently than any other scientific theory/hypothesis.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT YOUR DEITY EXISTS. What part of that do you refuse to understand.

Fucking idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 10:44 AM)anidominus Wrote:  My point was, is that we don't have any evidence that aliens exists.

We have the evidence of our own existence and of other planets that may be capable of sustaining life as we know it. And there may be other forms of life that can adapt to conditions that no life form on earth can survive in. These are POSSIBILITIES< not BELIEFS.



Quote: We have zero physical evidence, yet people believe aliens exist. It doesn't matter the complexity of the life.

And HERE is where you are playing fast and loose. I (and others) point out that it is possible that there may be life on other planets out there, somewhere, but YOU are jumping to a loaded conclusion that this is a BELIEF.



Quote:We based this on the fact that we are here and the universe is indeed big. Its a logical conclusion rooted in an observation. I can't prove or disprove the existence of aliens. There may not be any at all or their may be many, perhaps we are the first of many life forms through the universe. We don't know.




Quote:We also do not know the origins of the universe.

That's RIGHT. Including YOU. Which is what makes your conclusion that this gawd-thing had a hand in it, based on nothing but your admitted abject ignorance, a fallacious Argument from Ignorance.



Quote: We don't know if an eternal being did it or if the universe in of itself is eternal. We don't know. Even if "God" came here and performed every miracle you wanted and answered every question it wouldn't be proof that he was "God", because you could just as easily say "I think you're just a powerful alien who is using technology I don't understand."

Which would be pretty much what a "gawd" as you describe it would be anyway.



Quote:I observe the complexity cells. I observe life, which in of itself is a contradiction. What desire would "dead" rocks *(or whatever) have to form themselves in to an "organism" which consumes the "Dead" in order to remain "alive" and then wonder about itself and its purpose, believe in God, and study its dead nature to find out about its "life" nature only for said organism to die. Its a completely illogical process. Therefore I assume and believe in an eternal God who has a purpose for the creation.

No, you TELL YOURSELF thta you believe in this gawd-thing, but you have already admitted that YOU DON'T KNOW.


Quote:We can agree or disagree with the existence of Aliens or God but to remove the possibility of God from the equation is illogical.


That possibility is exactly the same as the possibility of leprechauns, unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But other evidence that we have demonstrates to us that your fairy story is just a fairy story.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-01-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(22-01-2014 05:45 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The problem is that God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise.

No, if you make the First Cause argument without God as a premise, then the only conclusion you can come to is "an agent capable of causing the start of the universe". This is way to vague of a conclusion to infer that it means "God". The only way you can get God specifically to be in the conclusion is if you either assume him in your premise or if you redefine "God" to mean "universe creator" and nothing else.

If you can say that God is the conclusion and that he is not in the premise, then I can just as easily assert the conclusion of the First Cause argument is fleems. I can do so because they weren't assumed in the premise and because they satisfy all the criteria of the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
24-01-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(24-01-2014 07:04 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 05:45 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The problem is that God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise.

No, if you make the First Cause argument without God as a premise, then the only conclusion you can come to is "an agent capable of causing the start of the universe". This is way to vague of a conclusion to infer that it means "God". The only way you can get God specifically to be in the conclusion is if you either assume him in your premise or if you redefine "God" to mean "universe creator" and nothing else.

If you can say that God is the conclusion and that he is not in the premise, then I can just as easily assert the conclusion of the First Cause argument is fleems. I can do so because they weren't assumed in the premise and because they satisfy all the criteria of the argument.

I posted this on the other thread yesterday in response to that:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@RobbyPants, as I mentioned above, the cosmological argument shows that a 'creator' is necessary. Cjlr didn't want me to refer to it as God, but the name is irrelevant, so I can refer to God as the 'creator fleem' if you would prefer. The real difference as I understand it between your fleems and God, is the idea of whether it is a single creator or multiple fleemish creators. To that, I would invoke occam's razor for the proposition that a single creator would make more sense than multiple creators. That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been multiple creators, just that it is more likely to have one 'causeless cause' than multiple.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, essentially yes, I can agree with you. The conclusion of the cosmological argument is that it proves the existence of an agent that caused the start of the universe, which is why I said multiple times on this thread that I was not referring to any particular religion's God, simply the existence of a "creator" (or "creator fleem"). The only key thing that you missed as a conclusion of the argument is the fact that the "creator" has to be eternal ie. he exists without requiring a cause.

(if you are wondering why it has to be an "agent" I went over that in the other thread http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid475726) at the bottom of the page.

The cosmological argument is not meant to prove any particular God. That having been said, once you get to the conclusion that an "eternal agent creator" exists who created the universe, you can then try to figure out some of the other qualities that such a being would have. For instance, such a creator would have to be immaterial or capable of existing in an immaterial form (at least in the sense that we understand materiality) as he existed before the material universe was created.

There are also other logical conclusions that can be made about the creator by looking at his creation. In the other forum I used the example that by reading a book you can make conclusions about the nature of the author. Some conclusions may be pretty much impossible to question (eg. the author of a book in the english language is fluent in english) while others may be logical, but debatable (eg. you could impute an author's political views from the moral of the story being told).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(24-01-2014 04:01 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  @RobbyPants, as I mentioned above, the cosmological argument shows that a 'creator' is necessary.

NO, it doesn't show that at all.

Arguments are not evidence. Semantic prestidigitation is not evidence.

Quote:The cosmological argument is not meant to prove any particular God. That having been said, once you get to the conclusion that an "eternal agent creator" exists who created the universe, you can then try to figure out some of the other qualities that such a being would have.

Incorrect. It was meant to prove ALLAH, the islamic gawd. And it fails to prove that as well.



Quote: For instance, such a creator would have to be immaterial or capable of existing in an immaterial form (at least in the sense that we understand materiality) as he existed before the material universe was created.

HE????? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself, even for having already gotten ahead of yourself? What does this entity need a penis for? Don't you see that you are begging the question over and over again?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(15-01-2014 10:06 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The problem is that if there is nothing in this universe that can exist without a cause, then where did everything come from?

If this premise is true, then necessarily, the universe is in some sense eternal. That said, it could simply be an invalid assumption. I'm sure others have, or will discuss the quantum physics reasons for suspecting that causality is not fundamental.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 05:11 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 09:23 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(24-01-2014 04:01 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  @RobbyPants, as I mentioned above, the cosmological argument shows that a 'creator' is necessary.
If it cannot provide a legitimate reason as to WHY the God is necessary.. then Cosmological argument go fuck itself!

Quote:To that, I would invoke occam's razor for the proposition that a single creator would make more sense than multiple creators.
Oh how cute...if you use occam's razor then the idea of God itself becomes INVALID as its needlessly complex and makes wayy too many assumptions..

And i fail to see how one creator makes more sense than multiple creators...
Quote:it is more likely to have one 'causeless cause' than multiple.
emm. NO IT ISN'T!

You don't know anything about God therefore you cannot say what's likely and what isn't!
Quote:it proves the existence of an agent that caused the start of the universe
NO it Doesn't! Drinking Beverage
Quote:the fact that the "creator" has to be eternal ie. he exists without requiring a cause.
That's ABSURD!! Occam's razor demands Death to so many assertions!

#1 Without any evidence or good reason provided you're ASSUMING that a creator exists.

#2 Then you're ASSUMING that this creator is eternal

#3 Then you're ASSUMING that there is only ONE creator and not two or three creators

#4 Then you're ASSUMING that this creator is conveniently "immaterial"

#5 And then without any good reason you're ASSUMING that this thing existed before the material universe was created..

Occam's Razor DOES NOT PERMIT so many assumptions! you're just making these absurd,far-fetched assumptions and making it sound like it somehow "Proves" the existence of god.

Well sorry my friend.. absurd,baseless assumptions doesn't prove JACKSHIT!Drinking Beverage
Quote:once you get to the conclusion that an "eternal agent creator" exists
No i won't get to that sorry... that's a far too absurd of an assumption with no evidence or proper reasoning backing up that claim.
Quote:There are also other logical conclusions that can be made about the creator by looking at his creation.
ASSUMPTION IS NOT A CONCLUSION.

You're just using the bill'o'riley's "You can't explain that" type of logic here..

If there is no creator then there are no "creations"... you can't twist logic to make it sound like a creator exists when it clearly doesn't.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2014, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 09:01 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(24-01-2014 04:01 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The real difference as I understand it between your fleems and God, is the idea of whether it is a single creator or multiple fleemish creators. To that, I would invoke occam's razor for the proposition that a single creator would make more sense than multiple creators. That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been multiple creators, just that it is more likely to have one 'causeless cause' than multiple.

Why? Why does assuming that there are multiple creators make more assumptions than assuming there's a single one? So far as I can tell, it seems that way to you because you've always assumed there's just one, so multiple is just weird.

Let me ask you it this way:

Q: How many creators are there?

A1: 1
A2: 2
A3: 1,000


Why does giving answer two or three make more assumptions than answer one? All that's being assumed is that a creator/creators exist, and how man there are. You are making the same number of assumptions assuming the number is exactly one than you are if you assume it's more than one.


Edit:
As long as we're counting assumptions, which of these two has fewer:
  • The universe was created by a creator. The creator has no creator because it's eternal.
  • The universe has no creator because it's eternal.
I'm not saying I can prove it, or that it's even the case, but it does satisfy the argument just fine and makes fewer assumptions. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: