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
04-02-2014, 04:39 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 02:43 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Circular arguments. You sound like Tourette's. I can't be bothered with another.
Chickening out are you? Laughat

You don't want to disclose whether you believe in God or not you just want to keep playing this mindless semantic squash.

As @sporehux said earlier Occam's Razor does fine with "I DO NOT KNOW" as an answer.. there's NO REASON to assume a God exists and there's no good reason to propose that idea in the first place!

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
04-02-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 01:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  This statement reflects the fundamental inertia inherent in scepticism or as Kant put it:
‘the euthanasia of pure reason’. If you are going to consider possibilities or move away from the empiricism (and the lack of evidence for it) then you will need to consider options. Proposing that something is "possibly incoherent" without validation for doing so just attempts to discredit options.

Naturalism is not a skeptical position. It's an extrapolation from observation.

As for the idea that a lack of nature is possibly incoherent, I say "possibly" only because I have yet to see anyone describe a lack of nature in a way that doesn't implicitly assume time and space. I've never seen a proof that it's incoherent, so I can't say for sure it is.

Quote:Unless you have a reason for why empiricism is the correct approach to answering this question, I would suggest you need to reconsider your approach or be dependent on denying possibilities, which is not useful unless it's justified.

Empiricism is the only technique I have that is demonstrated to work. If it's wrong, oh well, but I've certainly never seen a good reason to abandon it, and if your argument is "empiricism might be wrong and so there might be gods", well, maybe, but that isn't good reason to take these ideas seriously.

Quote:If you demonstrate a self-referential and self-creating system, then empiricism can be justified. Otherwise you're depending on empiricism, despite the lack of empirical evidence for it.

Nature can not have been created. The word "create" implies a time when something does not exist, followed by a time when it does. But time is part of nature. So for nature to be created, requires a time when time does not exist...this is so trivially straightforward and undeniable...but I'm betting you'll try to argue around it anyway.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?

Brpwnshitstain likes Scat.

[Image: 1Ra48.gif]

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
04-02-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 10:11 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 02:59 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  

Brpwnshitstain likes Scat.

[Image: 1Ra48.gif]

Your lack of understanding leads to many misconceptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 01:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 10:11 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Brpwnshitstain likes Scat.

[Image: 1Ra48.gif]

Your lack of understanding leads to many misconceptions.

More wishful thinking on your part. No surprise.

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
04-02-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 04:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 02:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Which goes back to why Occam's Razor justifies Naturalism, and why is it used so ubiquitously in atheist circles. The presumption is explanations can be obtained to account for existence. If there is a creator, why would it be a necessity that a by-product of a system, could explain the creator of that system? Unless you can explain this, using Occam's Razor seems to be a contrivance.

Indeed. The presumption is absolutely that explanations can be obtained.

The issue with anyone supposing a creator is that they are not obtaining an explanation but inventing one. Because just because, that's why, and never you mind.

Proposing that this generic thing of 'nature' is not an explanation either. It encompasses anything that exists, irrespective of the proof (or lack of proof for it) and often implies a naturalistic conclusion. However there is no explanation present, so stopping at "nature" based on Occam's Razor is also inventing an explanation which is self referential.




Quote:
(03-02-2014 02:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Why do so many atheists work off of the assumption that everything is knowable? What possible evidence, rationale, mode of causation do you promote to validate this perspective. Applying Occam's Razor despite the obvious ignorance is portraying a pretence of knowledge, where's there's none. How does natural solution become more parsimonious than a creator, unless you KNOW what the natural solution is?

I will try to make this clear. It posits one entity. To suppose a creator necessitates two (or more). In either case one is bound (if honest) to admit of remaining unanswerable questions.

No, Occam's Razor does not posit anything with regard to this question. It provides a method to use, and given there's no reason or evidence for this entity of "nature" to be viewed as self-explanatory, I don't see how it could be posited by someone utilising Occam's Razor based on what they consider to be more likely/unlikely due to the complete lack of evidence for an explanation.


Quote:To answer an unanswerable question with a non-answer which itself only raises further unanswerable questions is not productive.

And that is why Ockham's Razor applies.

If a creator exists the presumption of a self-referential system proposing a non answer' is an assumption. You need to be able to know a plausible conclusion is before you begin to state what is productive and this is why it doesn't.



Quote:
(03-02-2014 02:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  A potential infinite regress of creation points from big crunch to big bang, multiverses, string theory?

Why not?

Since I don't know, and you don't know, there is literally nothing either of us can come up with to which the response is "no, that's impossible". We are left with superficial aesthetic judgements from a vantage point within the universe itself, a view which by definition is not situated to consider itself in context.

"It holds less appeal to my gut intuition" is a dogshit answer.

Gut intuition being as useful as dogshit, so far as learning things about the universe is concerned.
[/quote]
Attempting to separate gut vs. the method in which our brains receive/process information is a bit of dogshit answer as well. That we can make sense of the material doesn't transcend into determining a inherent explanation and then apply Occam's Razor to it. I would expect Occam's Razor to apply to an explanation, not a generic concept.

Occam's Razor offers nothing in regard to addressing this question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 01:42 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 01:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your lack of understanding leads to many misconceptions.

More wishful thinking on your part. No surprise.

Shhhh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 04:39 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 02:43 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Circular arguments. You sound like Tourette's. I can't be bothered with another.
Chickening out are you? Laughat

You don't want to disclose whether you believe in God or not you just want to keep playing this mindless semantic squash.

As @sporehux said earlier Occam's Razor does fine with "I DO NOT KNOW" as an answer.. there's NO REASON to assume a God exists and there's no good reason to propose that idea in the first place!

If that makes you feel better about using circular arguments, then yes I'm chickening out. Where would you expect to go with a discussion as you claim to be correct without justification? At least write why you think what you do. I don't care that people disagree, but stating that you're right as you said so is really boring.

There's no reason to assume that Nature is a reasonable explanation either, so a creator is as viable as anything. If there's no reason to presuppose a creator, then applying Occam's Razor is useless to you. You've already asserted an unverified solution and incredibly ambiguous concept of "nature".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
*Raises hand*

Um..so has there been anything actually posted lately on the subject matter of the opening thread title? I've...kind of lost it amongst the almost thirty pages...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 10:03 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 01:25 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  This statement reflects the fundamental inertia inherent in scepticism or as Kant put it:
‘the euthanasia of pure reason’. If you are going to consider possibilities or move away from the empiricism (and the lack of evidence for it) then you will need to consider options. Proposing that something is "possibly incoherent" without validation for doing so just attempts to discredit options.

Naturalism is not a skeptical position. It's an extrapolation from observation.

It's a epistemological extrapolation from observation. I wouldn't expect the sceptic to find this position justified, as the sceptic should require proof that naturalism has some validated proof.

Quote:As for the idea that a lack of nature is possibly incoherent, I say "possibly" only because I have yet to see anyone describe a lack of nature in a way that doesn't implicitly assume time and space. I've never seen a proof that it's incoherent, so I can't say for sure it is.

I think our synthetic conceptual basis works within time and space, so I don't see how we can prove nature may not exist while be part of nature.

Quote:Unless you have a reason for why empiricism is the correct approach to answering this question, I would suggest you need to reconsider your approach or be dependent on denying possibilities, which is not useful unless it's justified.

Quote:Empiricism is the only technique I have that is demonstrated to work. If it's wrong, oh well, but I've certainly never seen a good reason to abandon it, and if your argument is "empiricism might be wrong and so there might be gods", well, maybe, but that isn't good reason to take these ideas seriously.

Empiricism works within what we observe. Why you leap beyond that is up to you to justify.

Quote:If you demonstrate a self-referential and self-creating system, then empiricism can be justified. Otherwise you're depending on empiricism, despite the lack of empirical evidence for it.

Quote:Nature can not have been created. The word "create" implies a time when something does not exist, followed by a time when it does. But time is part of nature. So for nature to be created, requires a time when time does not exist...this is so trivially straightforward and undeniable...but I'm betting you'll try to argue around it anyway.

Of course. Did you expect your post would convince me. I think it's not undeniable at all. What are you supposing about the singularity and time? That time began at the singularity, and there was no time for the singularity to occur, but it did? Given it is assumed to have been approx 14 billion years in the past, this is a finite time.

So "Nature" is what we have observed to exist, as opposed to what may actually exist. You may choose to consider we perceive reality as it is,I don't see any reason to make this assumption.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: