What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2014, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2014 09:56 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(01-02-2014 09:50 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  >I'm simply not discounting a creator as a potential option

>Therefore I need to propose options for why it may and may not exist
[Image: quote-occam-s-razor-no-more-things-shoul...372636.jpg]Drinking Beverage
Quote:but they're insufficient proof for me.
HA HA lol this part really cracked me up so you're saying that Fossil records,Microbiology,Physiology ,phylogeny and genetics is "insufficient" proof for you? i don't know a thing in this dimension that you can convince you anymore!
Quote:There's no proof for any position.
Exactly! that's why i'm an Agnostic Atheist.
Quote:That cannot observe react does not mean it's true
I can say the same thing about Metrosexual Superman or the flying Teapot but here's the catch! these "hypotheses" hold 0% credibility and are borderline FICTION.

Quote:That said, how do we know what we perceive is as it is?
[Image: 3e1fc5570e37419358a5f6051ca73c7db3f51358...9e13e4.jpg]
Quote:On that basis, do you have evidence which shows that naturalism is true? I hope so,
its the only thing i can observe&interact with so fuck everything that isn't natural!
Quote:otherwise your entire basis is unfounded and subjective.
you do realize that you're essentially just saying that your entire life maybe unfounded and subjective ?

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
02-02-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 09:49 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(01-02-2014 09:50 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  >I'm simply not discounting a creator as a potential option

>Therefore I need to propose options for why it may and may not exist
[Image: quote-occam-s-razor-no-more-things-shoul...372636.jpg]Drinking Beverage
Quote:but they're insufficient proof for me.
HA HA lol this part really cracked me up so you're saying that Fossil records,Microbiology,Physiology ,phylogeny and genetics is "insufficient" proof for you? i don't know a thing in this dimension that you can convince you anymore!
These prove nothing in regard to the existence of a creator. By applying the fossil records etc it seems you think I'm a creationist or something similar. I'm not a theist, I'm agnostic.

So, if you knew this can you propose how the above discounts a creator?

Quote:There's no proof for any position.
Exactly! that's why i'm an Agnostic Atheist.[/quote]

If there's no proof for a position, why do you posit fossil records etc as proof of something. Or are you saying they are disproof of literal Christianity? If so, I agree.


Quote:That cannot observe react does not mean it's true
I can say the same thing about Metrosexual Superman or the flying Teapot but here's the catch! these "hypotheses" hold 0% credibility and are borderline FICTION.[/quote]

I give no value to the flying teapot, FSM, fairies analogy. It links the concept of something ridiculous and mythical to something we have no idea of. If you can propose a validated alternative to a creator to account for existence, then all bets will be off. If you propose evidence is the best method we have to decode existence, then evidence needs to be produced. Until then, I feel safe in the assuming this question is unknowable.

Quote:That said, how do we know what we perceive is as it is?
[Image: 3e1fc5570e37419358a5f6051ca73c7db3f51358...9e13e4.jpg]

No, it's actually Descartes and some Kant as well. If you were first exposed to this concept via the Matrix, try not to push it as an insult. The funny thing is when the Matrix came out, I was bored by the pretence of it and thought it was trying to be deeper than it was. Obviously it caught a few fish though.

Quote:On that basis, do you have evidence which shows that naturalism is true? I hope so,
its the only thing i can observe&interact with so fuck everything that isn't natural![/quote]

Yeah fuck it. Truth is overrated anyway.


Quote:otherwise your entire basis is unfounded and subjective.
you do realize that you're essentially just saying that your entire life maybe unfounded and subjective ?
[/quote]

Yes I do. I have allocated value to what I believe to be valuable to me, this may be incorrect, if there is an objective reality/morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 05:32 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Occam's razor is not "true". It doesn't determine what is true. It is a heuristic device we use to choose when we are trying to decide between alternative unfalsified claims: Of two unfalsified hypotheses with equivalent predictive power we should focus our efforts on verifying the one with the least hidden variables and assumptions. All scientific knowledge falls into the "unfalsified" bucket therefore such a heuristic is essential to the progress of science, and Occam seems to be the best available in terms of moving the state of our knowledge forwards.

I know what Occam's Razor is. I am saying that by applying it, despite the inherent lack of evidence for both theories as explanatory, is a pointless endeavour. Claiming the natural, due to it being one less step is not useful as it is not explanatory. And the proposal of crossing quantum indeterminacy and the singularity to adequately account for existence can only ever exist in the theoretical. It only suits those who are attempting to justify their atheistic position and thereby removing a creator due to it possibly being superfluous, or one step further in the chain. The naturalist will apply Occam's Razor as it suits their conclusion, this does not make it so.

Choosing a point where you disconnect from what is knowable, and propose Occam's Razor as a substitute for ignorance and apply it on 2 unfalsified theories (one of which may be unprovable) is really pushing it. Whatever makes you believe that we can asses the existence of a creator, and therefore apply Occam's Razor to it? Seems like a setup.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Occams razor works perfectly well with "we don't know" as an answer.

Gods/Deities have been proven to be man made (this is as close as fact as you can get), even all the theist agree on this point.

Even if there was zero scientific "naturalism" evidence, the more rational stance is "I don' have knowledge of god" aka Atheist.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 07:01 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Occams razor works perfectly well with "we don't know" as an answer.

Gods/Deities have been proven to be man made (this is as close as fact as you can get), even all the theist agree on this point.

Even if there was zero scientific "naturalism" evidence, the more rational stance is "I don' have knowledge of god" aka Atheist.

Occam's Razor offers naturalism is a better solution based on parsimony.

"Gods/Deities have been proven to be man made (this is as close as fact as you can get), even all the theist agree on this point". Do you mean theists believe other gods (i.e not theirs) are man made? Are you stating that occam's razor is justified based on this? This point doesn't align.

Are you stating there is zero evidence for "Naturalism"? and if so, strong agnosticism would make more rational sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I know what Occam's Razor is. I am saying that by applying it, despite the inherent lack of evidence for both theories as explanatory, is a pointless endeavour.

Nature is observed. Gods are not. We have positive evidence of nature, and no evidence at all of any gods, nor are any gods necessary to explain anything. They are in every sense, an unnecessary hidden variable. Why doesn't Occam's Razor apply?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like toadaly's post
03-02-2014, 12:38 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 11:27 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I know what Occam's Razor is. I am saying that by applying it, despite the inherent lack of evidence for both theories as explanatory, is a pointless endeavour.

Nature is observed. Gods are not. We have positive evidence of nature, and no evidence at all of any gods, nor are any gods necessary to explain anything. They are in every sense, an unnecessary hidden variable. Why doesn't Occam's Razor apply?

Don't bother. Near as I can tell he gets his kicks here from wanting to be an atheist but do everything he can to never call himself an atheist, and hilarity ensues. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-02-2014, 01:15 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 11:27 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I know what Occam's Razor is. I am saying that by applying it, despite the inherent lack of evidence for both theories as explanatory, is a pointless endeavour.

Nature is observed. Gods are not. We have positive evidence of nature, and no evidence at all of any gods, nor are any gods necessary to explain anything. They are in every sense, an unnecessary hidden variable. Why doesn't Occam's Razor apply?

Nature is observed by nature. We are part of it and have no explanation for nature. We observe the mechanics and processes and think we have a larger scope than is justified.

You're welcome to propose that Occam's Razor is appropriate when assessing the confounding question of existence, just be expected to be able to justify why Occam's Razor (which is often applied to the simplest explanation) when we lack an explanation. Stating something unknown (natural cause) is more parsimonious than something else unknown (a creator) is really just a leap of scientific faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 01:22 AM by Brownshirt.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 12:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 11:27 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Nature is observed. Gods are not. We have positive evidence of nature, and no evidence at all of any gods, nor are any gods necessary to explain anything. They are in every sense, an unnecessary hidden variable. Why doesn't Occam's Razor apply?

Don't bother. Near as I can tell he gets his kicks here from wanting to be an atheist but do everything he can to never call himself an atheist, and hilarity ensues. Drinking Beverage

Given everything I've said outlines why I'm a strong agnostic, and why I deny atheism. How you come to that conclusion will probably remain in your head.

oh look coffee, double shot. Drinking BeverageDrinking Beverage This is probably the most pointless Smilies ever. :|

It's as if I'll never understand why you're right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 01:49 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Oh look, another brain fart in the wind.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: