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
05-02-2014, 05:08 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 05:13 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 03:23 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If that makes you feel better about using circular arguments
Circular ?? EXCUSE ME! I'm being explicitly blunt here! you are the only one who's trotting this bullshit matrix philosophy that nature isn't real and shit like that.
Quote:Where would you expect to go with a discussion as you claim to be correct without justification?
Really ? do you have proof that Naturalism isn't true?
Quote:At least write why you think what you do.
That's exactly what i'm asking YOU retard! what good reason do you have to propose such an absurd idea of a creator ? Wishful thinking ? that's NOT logical or rational.. so i'll just go with "I DO NOT KNOW" as an answer.
Quote:There's no reason to assume that Nature is a reasonable explanation either
being able to observe&interact with it is a pretty fucking solid reason.
Quote:so a creator is as viable as anything.
So is the flying teapot and the cosmic vagina.
Quote:If there's no reason to presuppose a creator, then applying Occam's Razor is useless to you.
Actually its the reason why Occam's razor is applicable. "I do now know" is a much more simple and logical explanation then

"I don't know either but i have this gut feeling that there may be a creator" that's fucking wishful thinking.

Quote:You've already asserted an unverified solution and incredibly ambiguous concept of"nature".
If nature is "Incredibly ambiguous" to you then perhaps you need some psychological counselling.

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
[+] 2 users Like IndianAtheist's post
05-02-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 05:08 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
Quote:There's no reason to assume that Nature is a reasonable explanation either
being able to observe&interact with it is a pretty fucking solid reason.
Quote:so a creator is as viable as anything.
So is the flying teapot and the cosmic vagina.




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
05-02-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I recall your position, but no proof was supplied

You recall incorrectly. Sorry, but it *was* a proof. This is a pointless exchange.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(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.

Yes. The universe is what the universe is. I agree.

We can still try to find out about it, of course.

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
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

Yes.

Or, in other words, "entities should not be multiplied without cause". As someone once said.

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
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.

You don't see why answering a mystery with a mystery does not reduce the number of mysteries to deal with?

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
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".

Right. So it does nothing, changes nothing, and affects nothing.

Why bother with it?

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
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".

Right. So it does nothing, changes nothing, and affects nothing.

Why bother with it?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
05-02-2014, 01:13 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 05:08 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  Circular ?? EXCUSE ME! I'm being explicitly blunt here! you are the only one who's trotting this bullshit matrix philosophy that nature isn't real and shit like that.
No I'm saying naturalism isn't necessarily true. Nature and naturalism are not interchangeable, if you treat them as such be prepared to present to justify this position.


Quote:That's exactly what i'm asking YOU retard! what good reason do you have to propose such an absurd idea of a creator ? Wishful thinking ? that's NOT logical or rational.. so i'll just go with "I DO NOT KNOW" as an answer.

If you don't know you're in no position to dismiss concepts.

[/quote]Actually its the reason why Occam's razor is applicable. "I do now know" is a much more simple and logical explanation then "I don't know either but i have this gut feeling that there may be a creator" that's fucking wishful thinking.[/quote]

You have no reason to posit that nature is self-created, and yet you do.

Quote:If nature is "Incredibly ambiguous" to you then perhaps you need some psychological counselling.

I never said nature was ambiguous, I said it was ambiguous (and this is being generous) as an explanation for existence. No doubt you don't understand the difference. You try to simplify to strengthen your position, but in reality you don't have one apart from depending on nature to account for itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 09:33 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I recall your position, but no proof was supplied

You recall incorrectly. Sorry, but it *was* a proof. This is a pointless exchange.

It was not a proof. You rely on a lack of understanding to validate your 'proof'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 12:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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

Yes.

Or, in other words, "entities should not be multiplied without cause". As someone once said.

I think the thing you're omitting are these not are possible explanations, they're vague concepts neither which could be promoted as explanations and they explain nothing based on what we know at the moment.

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
Quote: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.

You don't see why answering a mystery with a mystery does not reduce the number of mysteries to deal with?

Given they're all mysteries, I wouldn't promote a suitable method until more is known.

(04-02-2014 04:55 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
Quote:I don't treat it as an explanation. It's a concept which lacks an explanation, as does "nature".

Right. So it does nothing, changes nothing, and affects nothing.

Why bother with it?

We don't know what it does. Why bother attempting to apply a approach to something we know seemingly so little about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2014 09:08 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(05-02-2014 01:13 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  No I'm saying naturalism isn't necessarily true.
And what kind of rigorous research have you done to come to this retarded conclusion? unless you have substantiated evidence or research supporting your "EXTRAORDINARY claims" you're in NO position to make ABSURD,asinine,retarded and mind-numbingly STUPID assertions about the universe.
Quote:Nature and naturalism are not interchangeable
I never said they are i just said that there is 0% evidence for anything beyond natural world.
Quote:If you don't know you're in no position to dismiss concepts.
That makes no fucking sense! if you're making asinine,unsubstantiated assertions about the universe i will dismiss it for what it is.. asinine,unsubstantiated assertions!
Quote:You have no reason to posit that nature is self-created, and yet you do.
What in the actual menopause are you talking about? where the heck did i say anything about nature being "Created" ? this is getting ridiculous! You have to re-define "Nothing" to actually accommodate the idea that nature had a "beginning" in all technicality even blank space is still "Something" not "nothing" even the mere presence of natural laws is "something" not "nothing"
Quote:I said it was ambiguous as an explanation for existence.
Er... how is it "incredibly ambiguous" ? correct me if i'm wrong but isn't existence a PART OF NATURE?

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
06-02-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(06-02-2014 09:05 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 01:13 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  No I'm saying naturalism isn't necessarily true.

And what kind of rigorous research have you done to come to this retarded conclusion? unless you have substantiated evidence or research supporting your "EXTRAORDINARY claims" you're in NO position to make ABSURD,asinine,retarded and mind-numbingly STUPID assertions about the universe.

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you. You make a assumption, which ironically assumes that nature is all there is, but you lack an explanation from nature to demonstrate this.

I have made no claims, if you haven't realised, you have. You're like a devout theist, your hypocrisy is loud, but you appear deaf to it.


Quote:Nature and naturalism are not interchangeable
I never said they are i just said that there is 0% evidence for anything beyond natural world.

Yes the natural world doesn't require an explanation, we know it exists as we're here.
You need to try thinking.


Quote:If you don't know you're in no position to dismiss concepts.
Quote:That makes no fucking sense! if you're making asinine,unsubstantiated assertions about the universe i will dismiss it for what it is.. asinine,unsubstantiated assertions

No it does. If there is no explanation, then proposing concepts is all we have. You imply we possess the ability to decipher existence through natural means, or you wouldn't base your perspective on this. Why?

!
Quote:You have no reason to posit that nature is self-created, and yet you do.
What in the actual menopause are you talking about? where the heck did i say anything about nature being "Created" ? this is getting ridiculous! You have to re-define "Nothing" to actually accommodate the idea that nature had a "beginning" in all technicality even blank space is still "Something" not "nothing" even the mere presence of natural laws is "something" not "nothing"
Quote:I said it was ambiguous as an explanation for existence.
Er... how is it "incredibly ambiguous" ? correct me if i'm wrong but isn't existence a PART OF NATURE?
[/quote]

No the nature we experience is part of existence. Most people consider the big bang/singularity to have been the cause for existence (this would include nature).

I don't have to define anything, you're proposing the only correct way to determine the cause of existence is to examine a byproduct of it. That's yours to prove, not mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2014 07:06 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(06-02-2014 04:26 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you.
No it isn't.. you're the braindead moron who's claiming without ANY proof that there's something beyond the natural world and you pathetically fail to provide anything to back your imagination up.

For all we know there MAY be something beyond the natural world but if we don't have goddamn evidence to support that then its not worth pondering over your mental masturbation.
Quote:You make a assumption, which ironically assumes that nature is all there is
Oh no you fucking didn't! you're making the most obvious shifting the burden of proof fallacy.. that even makes the most hardcore theists blush!

You made a claim that nature isn't all there is and that there's something "Beyond" it i demanded proof for such an absurd claim then you shift the obvious burden of proof on me ?? AW HELL NO!
Quote:You're like a devout theist, your hypocrisy is loud, but you appear deaf to it.
I do give you credit for being an eloquent troll.[Image: www.pc-surgeon.net_images_cforum_smileys...finger.gif]
Quote:No it does. If there is no explanation, then proposing concepts is all we have.
i'm just dismissing your bullshit retarded claims if i'm not allowed to do that then you're not allowed to dismiss any asinine claims either!
Quote:No the nature we experience is part of existence.
Nature is the physical world
Quote:you're proposing
I'm not proposing anything.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: