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, 03:47 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

Of course it is.

And yet it still has the advantage of not inventing entities by fiat definition whose existence explains nothing. So there's that.

(04-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

If the crux of the problem is not knowing something then it is not parsimonious to make something up and define away subsequent problems.

(04-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

Are you serious?

The same thing applies to presuming a creator in the first place.

(04-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

And when you treat deism as an explanation, then it applies.

(04-02-2014 03:21 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Occam's Razor offers nothing in regard to addressing this question.

It rather does, regardless.

It is more honest and of greater worth to say "I don't know", in place of "I don't know, therefore X (where X is a thing about which I also don't know anything by definition".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-02-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 03:30 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

I don't think you know what the word "skeptic" means, as you are using it incorrectly over and over. Naturalism does not imply being a skeptic of anything at all. It's an extrapolation, rather than position of doubt on some other position.

Quote: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.

If you wish to claim that it's possible for nature not to exist, which is exactly what you're doing if you posit a creator god, then before we even get to the god stuff, it needs to be shown that the idea of the nonexistence of nature is even coherent. It certainly isn't obvious that's the case.

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

Explain to me what tools you are using, and why they are valid. Your entire argument seems to rest on a form of extreme skepticism that throws out everything. You're welcome to do that, but it's pointless and certainly isn't a compelling argument.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course it is.

And yet it still has the advantage of not inventing entities by fiat definition whose existence explains nothing. So there's that.

So nature explains itself, which explains nothing.

Quote:If the crux of the problem is not knowing something then it is not parsimonious to make something up and define away subsequent problems.

Are you talking about nature being self-created or a creator? In this instance, 2 things are made up and nature being self-created is chosen due to parsimony, as the made up conception of what nature is, is one step less than the creator

Quote:Are you serious?

The same thing applies to presuming a creator in the first place.
Of course, asserting a self-created and self-referential nature is a presumption. This is why I don't see Occam's Razor as applicable as it's entirely conceptual.


Quote:And when you treat deism as an explanation, then it applies.

I don't treat it as an explanation. It's a concept which lacks an explanation, as does "nature".


Quote:It rather does, regardless.

It is more honest and of greater worth to say "I don't know", in place of "I don't know, therefore X (where X is a thing about which I also don't know anything by definition".

I don't treat it as an explanation. It's a concept which lacks an explanation, as does "nature".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 04:37 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 03:30 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

I don't think you know what the word "skeptic" means, as you are using it incorrectly over and over. Naturalism does not imply being a skeptic of anything at all. It's an extrapolation, rather than position of doubt on some other position.


I never said being a naturalist implies being sceptical. I said naturalism is an"epistemological extrapolation from observation", while the remainder addresses how the sceptical should address naturalism.

Quote:If you wish to claim that it's possible for nature not to exist, which is exactly what you're doing if you posit a creator god, then before we even get to the god stuff, it needs to be shown that the idea of the nonexistence of nature is even coherent. It certainly isn't obvious that's the case.

To me this just demonstrates a bias towards naturalism. I need to demonstrate that naturalism is not correct by producing evidence to this effect.

How would someone demonstrate the non-existence of nature? Our faculties are based on, and part of nature, so how is this achievable? You seemingly have assumed that we possess the ability to assess reality as it is, not as it is presented to us.
Given this, it's odd that there's no explanation of nature as a self creating/referential/sustaining entity.



Quote:Empiricism works within what we observe. Why you leap beyond that is up to you to justify.
Quote:Explain to me what tools you are using, and why they are valid. Your entire argument seems to rest on a form of extreme skepticism that throws out everything. You're welcome to do that, but it's pointless and certainly isn't a compelling argument.

I don't understand your question. Once we have a validated solution for existence, I will consider it to be true. Speculating on what nature is and isn't is just that, speculative. There's no basis for this, unless you're depending on evolution and the singularity, which don't do much to prove either way. They take us one or even a few steps back, x-1=what?

It's hardly being extremely sceptical to not believe that nature is self-created, It's simply sceptical of common assertions made by atheists attempting to justify their position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 05:08 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
Quote:If you wish to claim that it's possible for nature not to exist, which is exactly what you're doing if you posit a creator god, then before we even get to the god stuff, it needs to be shown that the idea of the nonexistence of nature is even coherent. It certainly isn't obvious that's the case.

To me this just demonstrates a bias towards naturalism. I need to demonstrate that naturalism is not correct by producing evidence to this effect.

You may recall, that previously, I provided you proof as to why nature can not have been created. This same idea applies to the nonexistence of nature, whether it was created or not. There can not be a time when nature did not exist. So you would have to somehoe find a way to describe this nonexistence, without referring to time or space. I'm not aware of anyone successfully achieving this, yet it's a prerequisite to even taking the god hypothesis seriously.

Quote:How would someone demonstrate the non-existence of nature? Our faculties are based on, and part of nature, so how is this achievable?

I'm sorry, but this is a consequence of the position you've taken. Its seems bad form to complain about the burden.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 01:15 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 11:21 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 05:08 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  To me this just demonstrates a bias towards naturalism. I need to demonstrate that naturalism is not correct by producing evidence to this effect.

You may recall, that previously, I provided you proof as to why nature can not have been created. This same idea applies to the nonexistence of nature, whether it was created or not. There can not be a time when nature did not exist. So you would have to somehoe find a way to describe this nonexistence, without referring to time or space. I'm not aware of anyone successfully achieving this, yet it's a prerequisite to even taking the god hypothesis seriously.

I recall your position, but no proof was supplied You work off of time inherent in existence as validation for your claim that nature, solely as we perceive it, is all that is exists and any views which dispute this claim of yours must be false. I don't have to find a way to describe non-existence at all. Given the fundamental lack of evidence you have to effectively assert that nature is self-creating, and as this consistent requirement for evidence is requested, it would be logical to expect those who request it to be able to provide it, when they make a assertion?

I don't need to prove your assumption that evidence is available at all, particularity given your claim that I need to provide evidence outside from outside of existence to prove my case.

Quote:How would someone demonstrate the non-existence of nature? Our faculties are based on, and part of nature, so how is this achievable?
Quote:I'm sorry, but this is a consequence of the position you've taken. Its seems bad form to complain about the burden.

I'm not making a claim, I'm asserting potential options due to the overwhelming lack of evidence for a cause. You would prefer to assert nature was not created. If you claim that the only true method of assessing existence is by asserting nature is self-creating, I would expect you to actually hold something a little bit more substantial than expecting me to show you evidence outside of nature to disprove your assertion.
Why do you have an issue with options being considered?

It's a contradiction in your position to make a claim that nature was not created, but being unable to provide evidence to justify this position I would expect you can demonstrate from nature, that nature is at self-creating or infinite. Your position is at least supposedly obtainable, based on your theory, yet there's nothing to prove it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 01:47 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
[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
05-02-2014, 01:56 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 01:47 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: 1Ra48.gif]

It must be hard for you, you feel compelled to to contribute but just can't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 02:00 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 01:56 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 01:47 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: 1Ra48.gif]

It must be hard for you, you feel compelled to to contribute but just can't.

LOL I just contributed far more than you ever could.

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
05-02-2014, 02:08 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 02:00 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 01:56 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  It must be hard for you, you feel compelled to to contribute but just can't.

LOL I just contributed far more than you ever could.
Of course you did. Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: