Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
It's simply not good science to assume that everything that has not yet been discovered, does not exist. It's no less foolish than believing in something without evidence.

Free,

Your scenario makes no sense to me. You say that if we don't find truth in A, then it must be in B, even if we don't find it there either. Is that just because we looked in A first? What if we looked at B first and found no truth? Could we then conclude that the truth must lie in A?

And regarding my analogy, the only thing I'm trying to show is that we have discovered many things about the universe that were previously thought to not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I said the absence of evidence that should be present is evidence of absence.

What evidence should be present? I don't think we have reason to be 100% certain that there is no intention. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of intention is a pretty wild and crazy idea, and I don't think it is something that should be considered at all until evidence is brought forth. Science is just not in the business of going around and disproving everything that someone claims might be possible. It's not productive, and there's just no need. Any rational person will dismiss things that don't have evidence anyways. We don't need to put forth effort in disproving things that don't have evidence for existence.

(08-08-2015 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  One can hypothesize the existence of an unknown species. If there is no evidence of it, then it is not reasonable to believe it exists.

We are in 100% agreement on this.

(08-08-2015 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  When there is any reason to suppose that there is intention, I will include it in my working hypothesis. Until then, intention and pixies stay out.

I would hope that your hypothesis doesn't include anything that has no evidence whether it's intention, god, pixies, or whatever, but I think it would be a huge mistake to think that we won't discover more things about the universe that are contradictory to what was previously thought. Scientific discovery has surprised, baffled, and shocked us many times in the past, and I expect this trend to continue. I think it's a good idea to make the distinction between "dismissal" and "claiming impossibility".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 09:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 09:16 PM)Free Wrote:  My logic is correct. You have never experienced a dinosaur, because they no longer exist.

Simple.

Big Grin

But I have. Their remains exist, and what does remain of them has been of huge important to science in the past few hundred years.

Their remains is evidence of their previous existence, but you have no experience with an actual living dinosaur.

Existence- to humans- is all about what we experience. We cannot claim that something exists based upon speculation, for then we make a positive claim of which we may be unable to prove.

Sure, based upon previous experience regarding the same line of existence (eg: we discovered 1 planet, maybe there are more) we can certainly demonstrate with evidence the possibility that that line of existence will continue.

But intellectual honesty absolutely dictates that nothing more exists to us as humans until it has been discovered. It is completely irrelevant whether or not it actually does exist.

From the human perspective, nothing exists until we know it does.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 06:38 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I said the absence of evidence that should be present is evidence of absence.

What evidence should be present?

The same thing we've been saying since the start.

INTENTIONALITY.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 07:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Existence- to humans- is all about what we experience. We cannot claim that something exists based upon speculation, for then we make a positive claim of which we may be unable to prove.

Sure, based upon previous experience regarding the same line of existence (eg: we discovered 1 planet, maybe there are more) we can certainly demonstrate with evidence the possibility that that line of existence will continue.

But intellectual honesty absolutely dictates that nothing more exists to us as humans until it has been discovered. It is completely irrelevant whether or not it actually does exist.

From the human perspective, nothing exists until we know it does.

We have fossils and DNA. That's not "speculation". We "experience" seeing their bones, and skeletons, and we experience what science has discovered about them. You're attempting to make a distinction with no real difference. We ARE able to prove they existed, and that they were an important part of this planet's history. Dinosaurs existed when we were not experiencing them, BEFORE we discovered them. The changes this planet underwent that produced us were real, in every sense. It was all totally real, and we knew nothing about it, until human neurological systems evolved that were capable of experiencing it. If it had not been real, we would not now be able to grasp the past.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-08-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 07:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Existence- to humans- is all about what we experience. We cannot claim that something exists based upon speculation, for then we make a positive claim of which we may be unable to prove.

Sure, based upon previous experience regarding the same line of existence (eg: we discovered 1 planet, maybe there are more) we can certainly demonstrate with evidence the possibility that that line of existence will continue.

But intellectual honesty absolutely dictates that nothing more exists to us as humans until it has been discovered. It is completely irrelevant whether or not it actually does exist.

From the human perspective, nothing exists until we know it does.

We have fossils and DNA. That's not "speculation". We "experience" seeing their bones, and skeletons, and we experience what science has discovered about them. You're attempting to make a distinction with no real difference. We ARE able to prove they existed, and that they were an important part of this planet's history. Dinosaurs existed when we were not experiencing them, BEFORE we discovered them. The changes this planet underwent that produced us were real, in every sense. It was all totally real, and we knew nothing about it, until human neurological systems evolved that were capable of experiencing it. If it had not been real, we would not now be able to grasp the past.

You seem to misunderstand.

Since we have discovered those fossils, we know those dinosaurs existed. That is not in dispute, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a living dinosaur.

But directly to the point, nothing exists to us until we have discovered it. It is irrelevant whether or not it exists outside of our knowledge.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 08:47 AM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 06:23 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What if we looked at B first and found no truth? Could we then conclude that the truth must lie in A?

Yes, exactly.

Presuming that the truth exists, and if there are only two possible locations, the truth will always be in 1 of those 2 locations. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the truth actually is.


Quote:And regarding my analogy, the only thing I'm trying to show is that we have discovered many things about the universe that were previously thought to not exist.

Yes, regarding the natural universe, this is true. We discovered new things because we have discovered previous things, and those previous discoveries provide evidence of the possibility to discover new things. Science always progresses along the lines of discovery after discovery, confirming possibilities.

However,

When we are looking for intentionality- as per Intelligent Design, God, etc- since we have absolutely no previous discovery regarding it, then we have absolutely no basis to demonstrate that 1) it is the truth, and 2) it is possibly the truth.

There is absolutely no evidence of intentionality, and absolutely no evidence of the possibility of intentionality. And because of that, we are justified to conclude that the truth lies elsewhere.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:33 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 08:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We have fossils and DNA. That's not "speculation". We "experience" seeing their bones, and skeletons, and we experience what science has discovered about them. You're attempting to make a distinction with no real difference. We ARE able to prove they existed, and that they were an important part of this planet's history. Dinosaurs existed when we were not experiencing them, BEFORE we discovered them. The changes this planet underwent that produced us were real, in every sense. It was all totally real, and we knew nothing about it, until human neurological systems evolved that were capable of experiencing it. If it had not been real, we would not now be able to grasp the past.

You seem to misunderstand.

Since we have discovered those fossils, we know those dinosaurs existed. That is not in dispute, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a living dinosaur.

But directly to the point, nothing exists to us until we have discovered it. It is irrelevant whether or not it exists outside of our knowledge.

No it isn't, and yes it does. Even if we knew nothing about any of it, the evolutionary impact of every thing that every happened has a direct impact on how we experience "now", whether we are aware of what happened or not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 09:33 AM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 08:33 AM)Free Wrote:  You seem to misunderstand.

Since we have discovered those fossils, we know those dinosaurs existed. That is not in dispute, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a living dinosaur.

But directly to the point, nothing exists to us until we have discovered it. It is irrelevant whether or not it exists outside of our knowledge.

No it isn't, and yes it does. Even if we knew nothing about any of it, the evolutionary impact of every thing that every happened has a direct impact on how we experience "now", whether we are aware of what happened or not.

That is true, but we cannot speak to the future regarding new discoveries that have not yet been deemed as even being possible.

We can look at the past and find bones upon bones, and that qualifies the possibility that we could find new different bones. Why? Because the possibility has been demonstrated as being true.

But we cannot look to the future with no basis of possibility from previous experience and make any claims of existence. That's what theists do, such as the one whom I hold in suspicion of having a cunt.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:42 AM)Free Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 06:23 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What if we looked at B first and found no truth? Could we then conclude that the truth must lie in A?

Yes, exactly.

Presuming that the truth exists, and if there are only two possible locations, the truth will always be in 1 of those 2 locations. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the truth actually is.

Ok. Let me show you a hypothetical scenario that shows the absurdity of this kind of logic.

John looks in A for the truth, doesn't find it, so he concludes that it must be in B. He later looks in B, doesn't find it there either, but since he looked in A first, he sticks with his conclusion that it must be in B.

Henry looks in B for the truth, doesn't find it, so he concludes that it must be in A. He later looks in A, doesn't find it there either, but since he looked in B first, he sticks with his conclusion that it must be in A.

John concludes B, Henry concludes A. Which one is right?

(09-08-2015 08:42 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes, regarding the natural universe, this is true. We discovered new things because we have discovered previous things, and those previous discoveries provide evidence of the possibility to discover new things. Science always progresses along the lines of discovery after discovery, confirming possibilities.

However,

When we are looking for intentionality- as per Intelligent Design, God, etc- since we have absolutely no previous discovery regarding it, then we have absolutely no basis to demonstrate that 1) it is the truth, and 2) it is possibly the truth.

There is absolutely no evidence of intentionality, and absolutely no evidence of the possibility of intentionality. And because of that, we are justified to conclude that the truth lies elsewhere.

I agree that there is absence of evidence of intentionality, but a mere lack of evidence doesn't lead us to the conclusion that intentionality is impossible. We can't even be 100% certain that everything is not an illusion...i.e. for all we know, it is possible that we are in the matrix and don't know it. We have no reason to believe that's the case, but with our limited knowledge, I don't think we know that it's impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: