Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 01:55 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I was sipping some coffee and thinking about the no claim claim many atheists make regarding theism. Lets try it with some other claim and see if it makes sense. Suppose I claim the Holocaust occurred and someone responds I reject the claim the holocaust occurred. I respond 'oh you mean you disagree the holocaust occurred? The person responds, 'no I don't deny the holocaust occurred, I just reject the claim the holocaust occurred. So you reject the claim the holocaust occurred but not the event itself. It would seem pointless to provide evidence the Holocaust occurred to someone who doesn't deny the holocaust occurred, just denies the claim it occurred. I think at that point I would respond where do you get your recreational drugs from? To me at least the no claim claim is just a dodge or debating tactic so atheists can say they have no case to defend. The problem is you're never going to convince the teeming masses of anything based on nothing more than a rejection of a claim when you don't actually reject the claim the claim makes....

Except you are making a distinction that does not exist.

A claim made without evidence to support it may be summarily dismissed. And dismissing the claim says nothing about its truth value except that there is no reason to believe it is true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 01:55 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Suppose I claim the Holocaust occurred and someone responds I reject the claim the holocaust occurred. I respond 'oh you mean you disagree the holocaust occurred? The person responds, 'no I don't deny the holocaust occurred, I just reject the claim the holocaust occurred. So you reject the claim the holocaust occurred but not the event itself. It would seem pointless to provide evidence the Holocaust occurred to someone who doesn't deny the holocaust occurred, just denies the claim it occurred.

Actually, we would be 100% correct in asking you to support your claim of the Holocaust with more than an assertion that it happened.

A better example would be for me to tell you about how the Americans wiped out 16 million people of the Woo Tribe in the Second World War. You'd probably feel reasonable about saying you rejected this claim until I provided solid evidence of not only where/when/how this happened, but who the fuck the Woo People even were. If I then turned around and asked you why do you affirmatively deny the Woo people, you'd be perfectly justified in punching me in the nose and walking away.

Fair enough. However, if I were able to produce 5 facts that comport with that claim since you don't deny it occurred that would be more than sufficient to meet my burden of evidence, true? But really Rocketsurgeon, man to man...you're not a 'weak atheist' are you? Judging from your posts I think you're more convinced of naturalistic claims than I am of theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Dafuq's a weak atheist?

And don't say an agnostic.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Of course. I think the many-worlds interpretation may be surpassing the Copenhagen interpretation but I'm not sure. And yes, there's nothing supernatural about it, it's just spooky action at a distance. If we accept that the wave collapse requires an external observer then all there is left is to define "an external observer". There are those like Robert Lanza who argue that an "observer" requires consciousness and leads to biocentrism. There are others like Robert Wheeler who argue that a participatory universe does not require the observer to be conscious. Any rock will work.

I agree about the questionable nature of the proposition that it requires a conscious observer. It's a similar position to the OP's, actually, injecting consciousness where it is not required to define a natural effect.

The example my Chemistry 102 professor taught me has stuck with me on this subject. We were discussing the "electron cloud" quantum definition of orbits, which is the reality we represent with circular, planetary-type orbits in drawings because it's too hard to wrap our minds around the idea of a probability cloud. He said that an electron's location and velocity are quantum variables only one of which can be known at a time because we can only measure their location or velocity by "bouncing something off of them" in order to observe them. To do this means you can know its position at the time of the measurement but not its velocity because that changes via the measurement, and vice versa. Otherwise, it can only be mathematically summed up as "the electron is somewhere in the region of this smudge (cloud)".

[Image: electroncloud_thumb.jpg]

[Image: Lawrence-Berkeley-National-Laboratory-Ar...bitals.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-07-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 02:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You know well that "mysterious" does not translate to "guided by supernatural forces" rather than natural explanations. Yes, everything at the quantum level is spooky, which is what caused Einstein to utter his now-famous "God does not play at dice" comment. But you'd be hard pressed to find a quantum physicist claiming these effects have anything to do with supernatural causation; indeed, the Cophenhagen explanation of this effect is the standard.

Of course. I think the many-worlds interpretation may be surpassing the Copenhagen interpretation in the community but I'm not sure. And yes, there's nothing supernatural about it, it's just spooky action at a distance. If we accept that the wave collapse requires an external observer then all there is left is to define "an external observer". There are those like Robert Lanza who argue that an "observer" requires consciousness and leads to biocentrism. There are others like John Wheeler who argue that a participatory universe does not require the observer to be conscious. Any rock will work.

Rock on. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-07-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 01:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Wave collapse of quantum superposition is still mysterious.

Only if you assume that an actual wave is actually collapsing. Drinking Beverage

I think the word "collapse" is wrong. It implies some sorta temporal action. I think it's more like a pendulum oscillating at a frequency too high to be perceptible. You take a picture of it with a CCD camera and you have instantaneously captured its state. I don't think it's wave collapse, I think it is state capture.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-07-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:31 PM)jennybee Wrote:  Here are 5 "facts" about leprechauns: (Does that mean they exist?)

1. Lucky Charms mascot.
2. They typically wear green clothes.
3. They hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
4. According to Wiki--they live in the forest or garden.
5. They engage in mischief.

Sure they exist. How else milk would go bad if by not them pissing into it? Wink

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Szuchow's post
25-07-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:37 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Fair enough. However, if I were able to produce 5 facts that comport with that claim since you don't deny it occurred that would be more than sufficient to meet my burden of evidence, true? But really Rocketsurgeon, man to man...you're not a 'weak atheist' are you? Judging from your posts I think you're more convinced of naturalistic claims than I am of theism.

Anjele - "Weak atheist" is an older term for one who simply does not believe the claims of theists. "Strong atheist", then, is one who affirmatively denies the existance of God/gods.

The problem with it was that jackasses kept using the term as a pejorative. So we stopped using it, just to stop having to have the same insult-wars with morons.

Drewpaul - Yes, if you were able to produce several facts (5 might be enough, depending on the strength of those facts as evidence, the connection you are able to draw between the facts and the conclusions you're promoting, and of course whether other facts countermand the ones you're presenting or otherwise provide a more reasonable explanation than the conclusion you proposed), then I would accept your proposal to the exact degree of confidence I felt the facts supported, and no more.

I have the same opinion about Germ Theory, etc.

However, because I feel their conclusions are so solid and their predictions so readily confirmed with each new experiment and/or line of evidence (all of which have the possibility of disproving the whole shebang, but don't), I do feel that naturalistic explanations cover everything just fine, without the need to resort to Fairies as explanatory special pleadings.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 02:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Only if you assume that an actual wave is actually collapsing. Drinking Beverage

I think the word "collapse" is wrong. It implies some sorta temporal action. I think it's more like a pendulum oscillating at a frequency too high to be perceptible. You take a picture of it with a CCD camera and you have instantaneously captured its state. I don't think it's wave collapse, I think it is state capture.

That's the clearest statement of a reasonable interpretation I have ever heard. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-07-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Could I see some evidence of a god/creator's existence that doesn't involve an argument from ignorance or represent a shifting of the burden of proof? Just one bit? Please?

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheMrBillShow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: