Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2016, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 02:32 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 02:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  No

No this time I do not think I was equivocating, I can not speak for my past posts as I've forgotten their contents by and large now.

But this one I put forward that Theists don't believe without proof but rather that their proof is different from our own. Therefore I am not using the word faith to mean 'belief without proof' because I've already put forward that I don't believe they believe without proof.

Now what we define as proof and what is not proof that varies.

So in this case as was my intent I intended to use the belief with strong conviction as theists would have every right to if they believed their god was the manifestation of the entire universe. There's a lot of evidence for the universe existing.

Is that equivocating?


Equivocation
-The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.


Comparing 'faith' with 'proof' is equivocation. Whenever someone tires to equate 'faith in their religion' with 'having proof for their religion', that is equivocating. Definitions matter, having a clear grasp of the words we use to communicate matters. If a believer has never come face-to-face with the reality of just how vacuous their supposed 'proof' is, continuing to coddle their misconceptions is not productive.

There is a reason why religion requires faith, and science rejects it; and that distinction is critically important.

Was I comparing faith with truth? was I saying they have proof for their religion? or wa I saying that they are strongly convinced they have proof?

As for what we consider proof, mainly is it not just words drawn on a piece of paper (or digitally typed) and consensus by the scientific community? So then is not our proof in reality just words and the consensus of others? I do not see much difference between that and say the catholic church, which has the consensus of the clergy where as in science there would be the consensus of the scholars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 02:39 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 02:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  As for what we consider proof, mainly is it not just words drawn on a piece of paper (or digitally typed) and consensus by the scientific community? So then is not our proof in reality just words and the consensus of others? I do not see much difference between that and say the catholic church, which has the consensus of the clergy where as in science there would be the consensus of the scholars.


So you cannot tell the difference between a consensus built upon demonstrable evidence and one without?

That's equivocation. Dodgy

Thanks for proving my point.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 02:55 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 02:39 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 02:28 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  As for what we consider proof, mainly is it not just words drawn on a piece of paper (or digitally typed) and consensus by the scientific community? So then is not our proof in reality just words and the consensus of others? I do not see much difference between that and say the catholic church, which has the consensus of the clergy where as in science there would be the consensus of the scholars.


So you cannot tell the difference between a consensus built upon demonstrable evidence and one without?

That's equivocation. Dodgy

Thanks for proving my point.

Its not about who's consensus it is about the fact that we are essentially taking them for their word. And that is belief without proof is it not?

How do we know that the red shift is created by the doppler effect? It is said that quantum mechanics doesn't support the big bang theory yet it is still being touted as the most prominent scientific theory on the origins of the universe. Indeed it is even assumed out of hand that the universe has an origin, a little bit bias from the get go.

I am reminded of the past, when people thought the sun orbited the earth, and people made so many models and contraptions of the this central earth theory despite nothing working for it.

It looks very much to me like the past is repeating itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 03:30 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 02:39 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So you cannot tell the difference between a consensus built upon demonstrable evidence and one without?

That's equivocation. Dodgy

Thanks for proving my point.
Its not about who's consensus it is about the fact that we are essentially taking them for their word. And that is belief without proof is it not?

No. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hell no!

If I don't accept the conclusions of Special Relativity or the Laws of Gravity, I can perform experiments. I can double check their work, the available evidence, and how they came to their conclusions. Their consensus is built upon facts, and fact are independently verifiable pieces of evidence. They care not for anyone's faith, because they stand on their own.

That difference fucking matters.


(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  How do we know that the red shift is created by the doppler effect?

Because we can, and have, tested it.

That difference matters.


(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It is said that quantum mechanics doesn't support the big bang theory yet it is still being touted as the most prominent scientific theory on the origins of the universe.

Quantum physics is bleeding edge, and theoretical quantum physics is the tip of the spear. There is not a consensus in some areas because they're working on ideas that have, as of yet, been beyond our capabilities to test; and empirical evidence is the great arbiter of science. But once we can test it? Once the Large Hadron Collider supplied us with evidence of the Higgs-Bosson with a probability higher than 99.9999% probability as to the accuracy of it's findings? Well, that's now a fact, and further cements the strength of the current explanatory model, even if it cannot explain everything.

That difference matters.


(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Indeed it is even assumed out of hand that the universe has an origin, a little bit bias from the get go.

No, it is not 'assumed'. Any honest theoretical physics will readily admit that we cannot yet know, and at best we have provincial educated guesses based on our current understating.

To assert otherwise is to engage in equivocation.


(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I am reminded of the past, when people thought the sun orbited the earth, and people made so many models and contraptions of the this central earth theory despite nothing working for it.

It looks very much to me like the past is repeating itself.

You mean when people tried their best to reconcile their evidence based observations with the Church mandated teaching of a Earth centered universe? Yeah, then you get weird shit like epicycles and the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.

We almost certainly don't have the complete picture. But to dismiss our current best understanding because of past failures of people to not be scientific enough? Of the limitations of their belief structures or their technology?


Boy howdy, you are equivocating all over the damn place, and you're entirely oblivious to it. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 03:53 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 03:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 02:55 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Its not about who's consensus it is about the fact that we are essentially taking them for their word. And that is belief without proof is it not?

No. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hell no!

If I don't accept the conclusions of Special Relativity or the Laws of Gravity, I can perform experiments. I can double check their work, the available evidence, and how they came to their conclusions. Their consensus is built upon facts, and fact are independently verifiable pieces of evidence. They care not for anyone's faith, because they stand on their own.

That difference fucking matters.

But have you performed those experiments?


Quote:Because we can, and have, tested it.

That difference matters.

You've personally tested the doppler effect regarding red shift?



Quote:Boy howdy, you are equivocating all over the damn place, and you're entirely oblivious to it. Facepalm

I am trying to discern whether I am being equivocal, or whether others are being ad hominem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 04:11 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 03:53 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 03:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hell no!

If I don't accept the conclusions of Special Relativity or the Laws of Gravity, I can perform experiments. I can double check their work, the available evidence, and how they came to their conclusions. Their consensus is built upon facts, and fact are independently verifiable pieces of evidence. They care not for anyone's faith, because they stand on their own.

That difference fucking matters.

But have you performed those experiments?

No, because that is not practical. Not everyone can be an expert in every field of study, there are only so many hours in the day,

But that's not what you are doing. You are equating the consensus of a group of experts based upon testable, verifiable evidence, in which everyone has incentive to prove each other wrong, so that only the best ideas and evidence that can withstand such scrutiny becomes the consensus? And you try to compare that to groups of supposedly holy men arguing over fiction?

Yeah, we're gonna have a problem with that. The differences between the two matters. Having an informed opinion based upon independently verifiable evidence matters. Taking the consensus of a field of experts using a self-correcting methodology is a far cry from believing a Pastor at Sunday School.


(18-11-2016 03:53 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Because we can, and have, tested it.

That difference matters.
You've personally tested the doppler effect regarding red shift?

No, as I do not posses a spectrograph. But I understand the principals at play. One can easily test the Doppler Effect itself. Taking that concept and applying it to light, then measuring the magnitude of the changes to determine changes in velocity? Yeah, it's not a hard concept to wrap your head around.

If I wanted to, I could track down a university that had one, and ask the professor or head of the department about it. The tools are there, the evidence is there, and the math is there. That's enough information for me to accept the concept of Red Shift as provincially true. It is not taken on faith, and it is subject to evidence and any changes in that evidence.

That difference fucking matters.



(18-11-2016 03:53 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Boy howdy, you are equivocating all over the damn place, and you're entirely oblivious to it. Facepalm

I am trying to discern whether I am being equivocal, or whether others are being ad hominem.

You are being equivocal.

Remember too that an Ad Hominem is to attack someone in place of making an argument. Someone who counters your argument and calls you an 'idiot' hasn't committed an Ad Hominem, as their refutation stands on it's own; the 'idiot' part is just icing on the cake.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 04:32 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 04:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, because that is not practical. Not everyone can be an expert in every field of study, there are only so many hours in the day,

And that is an excuse to justify belief without evidence.

Quote:But that's not what you are doing. You are equating the consensus of a group of experts based upon testable, verifiable evidence, in which everyone has incentive to prove each other wrong, so that only the best ideas and evidence that can withstand such scrutiny becomes the consensus? And you try to compare that to groups of supposedly holy men arguing over fiction?

Neither the best ideas nor the best evidence is supported, merely the ones with the most financial backing. Everyone after all, does have incentive to prove each other wrong, this includes the Catholic Church, Scientology, and the Governments.These holy men arguing over fiction receive more money than you or I (likely) will ever see in our lifetime.

Quote:Yeah, we're gonna have a problem with that. The differences between the two matters. Having an informed opinion based upon independently verifiable evidence matters. Taking the consensus of a field of experts using a self-correcting methodology is a far cry from believing a Pastor at Sunday School.

One could argue that the theistic approach 'god did it' is a very tried and true self-correcting method.

Quote:No, as I do not posses a spectrograph. But I understand the principals at play. One can easily test the Doppler Effect itself. Taking that concept and applying it to light, then measuring the magnitude of the changes to determine changes in velocity? Yeah, it's not a hard concept to wrap your head around.

If I wanted to, I could track down a university that had one, and ask the professor or head of the department about it. The tools are there, the evidence is there, and the math is there. That's enough information for me to accept the concept of Red Shift as provincially true. It is not taken on faith, and it is subject to evidence and any changes in that evidence.

More excuses.

Quote:That difference fucking matters.

It only matters if you've actually done it, otherwise you are doing the very thing you accuse others.



Quote:You are being equivocal.

Remember too that an Ad Hominem is to attack someone in place of making an argument. Someone who counters your argument and calls you an 'idiot' hasn't committed an Ad Hominem, as their refutation stands on it's own; the 'idiot' part is just icing on the cake.

I understand that many here will not like to be compared to religion in any way shape or form, but in all ways shapes and forms they are very similar to the religious they abhor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 05:16 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 04:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, because that is not practical. Not everyone can be an expert in every field of study, there are only so many hours in the day,
And that is an excuse to justify belief without evidence.

No, dipshit, that is the reality of our mortal existence and the limited time we have here.


(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:But that's not what you are doing. You are equating the consensus of a group of experts based upon testable, verifiable evidence, in which everyone has incentive to prove each other wrong, so that only the best ideas and evidence that can withstand such scrutiny becomes the consensus? And you try to compare that to groups of supposedly holy men arguing over fiction?
Neither the best ideas nor the best evidence is supported, merely the ones with the most financial backing. Everyone after all, does have incentive to prove each other wrong, this includes the Catholic Church, Scientology, and the Governments.These holy men arguing over fiction receive more money than you or I (likely) will ever see in our lifetime.

Fuck you, and here's why.

The Cardinals in the RRC aren't using the scientific method, they have no hypothesis to test, their arguments have no empirical basis.

Governments don't trade in truth. Politicians do not have the same incentive for factual accuracy as do professional scientists. Indeed they are motivated by their constituency, and those who can get them votes or do them favors.

All of the money in the world isn't going to overturn the Theory of Evolution in favor of Creationism, nor will the speed of light stop being constant in a vacuum. Money doesn't just buy facts. It can buy public perception, but you cannot buy your own set of fact separate from everyone else.


(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Yeah, we're gonna have a problem with that. The differences between the two matters. Having an informed opinion based upon independently verifiable evidence matters. Taking the consensus of a field of experts using a self-correcting methodology is a far cry from believing a Pastor at Sunday School.
One could argue that the theistic approach 'god did it' is a very tried and true self-correcting method.

One could argue that, and they'd be a fucking idiot. Honestly, one need only say 'Dark Ages' and rest their case.

It is not a self-correcting method. The continuous splintering of established religions into an ever increasing number of denominations, instead of their coalescence into a single faith, belies the vacuousness of your assertion. There is just 'biology' and 'mathematics' and 'physics', not 'Christian biology' or 'Islamic math' or 'Jewish physics'. The individual evidence and methodologies of their respective fields stand up to scrutiny, regardless of the religious affiliation of the practitioner; their religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the field at hand.

Notice however, that this is not the case in the field of theology. Drinking Beverage



(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:No, as I do not posses a spectrograph. But I understand the principals at play. One can easily test the Doppler Effect itself. Taking that concept and applying it to light, then measuring the magnitude of the changes to determine changes in velocity? Yeah, it's not a hard concept to wrap your head around.

If I wanted to, I could track down a university that had one, and ask the professor or head of the department about it. The tools are there, the evidence is there, and the math is there. That's enough information for me to accept the concept of Red Shift as provincially true. It is not taken on faith, and it is subject to evidence and any changes in that evidence.
More excuses.

Sorry if I'm bound by the realities of our physical universe. If that's too inconvenient for you, I welcome you to fuck off.


(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:That difference fucking matters.
It only matters if you've actually done it, otherwise you are doing the very thing you accuse others.

Are you fucking serious?

Then it only matters if each and every Christian was themselves turned into a god and scarified for everyone's sins, right?

Does the concept of powered flight remain a myth until you yourself fly on a commercial airliner?

Does Japan not exist until you visit it?

Is your computer a mysterious and magical ghost machine until you've earned a degree in engineering, created your own semiconductors in your basement, and built one from scratch?


You are being purposely obtuse, and it is not amusing. Dodgy


(18-11-2016 04:32 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:You are being equivocal.

Remember too that an Ad Hominem is to attack someone in place of making an argument. Someone who counters your argument and calls you an 'idiot' hasn't committed an Ad Hominem, as their refutation stands on it's own; the 'idiot' part is just icing on the cake.
I understand that many here will not like to be compared to religion in any way shape or form, but in all ways shapes and forms they are very similar to the religious they abhor.

No, you're an just idiot who lacks the capacity to comprehend nuance and very important distinctions in reality. Nobody enjoys being compared to the religious by someone who evidently lacks the capacity to reason better than they do. Nobody appreciates false equivocation.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 05:48 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 05:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, dipshit, that is the reality of our mortal existence and the limited time we have here.

Its called double standards, so the christians' can't believe without proof but you can?


Quote:The Cardinals in the RRC aren't using the scientific method, they have no hypothesis to test, their arguments have no empirical basis.

Governments don't trade in truth. Politicians do not have the same incentive for factual accuracy as do professional scientists. Indeed they are motivated by their constituency, and those who can get them votes or do them favors.

All of the money in the world isn't going to overturn the Theory of Evolution in favor of Creationism, nor will the speed of light stop being constant in a vacuum. Money doesn't just buy facts. It can buy public perception, but you cannot buy your own set of fact separate from everyone else.

They don't need to buy facts, all they need is public perception.


Quote:Are you fucking serious?

Then it only matters if each and every Christian was themselves turned into a god and scarified for everyone's sins, right?

Does the concept of powered flight remain a myth until you yourself fly on a commercial airliner?

Does Japan not exist until you visit it?

Is your computer a mysterious and magical ghost machine until you've earned a degree in engineering, created your own semiconductors in your basement, and built one from scratch?

You are being purposely obtuse, and it is not amusing. Dodgy

Is this what they call a straw man argument?


Quote:No, you're an just idiot who lacks the capacity to comprehend nuance and very important distinctions in reality. Nobody enjoys being compared to the religious by someone who evidently lacks the capacity to reason better than they do. Nobody appreciates false equivocation.

Its okay, religious people often get hostile too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(15-11-2016 10:16 AM)jason197754 Wrote:  And how can something come from nothing??? How can we respond to that argument???

By telling them that it is a badly phrased question. We're hardwired for a couple main functions, pattern recognition and pattern reinforcement. From the first arises our love of duality, as in order for there to be "pattern" there must be "not pattern." These black glyphs on a white background, for instance. Speaking of glyphs, from the second comes our love of telling stories.

So ya put these two things together, and it can be seen how some singular concepts cry out for their opposites, regardless of value or meaning. Thus, nothing. Which is fucking nothing. There is no nothing that is not merely a manufactured concept provided for the balance of something.

But we can see how that's gonna go... generally as atheists, we're "expected" to be PhD equivalent in all the fields of science or the theist declares, "See! It's Gawd! I tole you." One of the many reasons I tend not to get involved with these discussions no morez.

So now, I'd likely respond with something along the lines of "What do you know about the left-handed muon?"

If they're gonna be dumb as a stump I find it's best to discover that as soon as possible. Wink

And only stumps talk about "the big bang." It's the lambda cold dark matter model... you stumps. Laugh out load

But there's so many steps (intellegently and coherently) between "creation from nothing" (which is actually their line) and "big bang" that it's rarely worth the journey. (and the first step is - there is no fucking nothing, you stump. Big Grin )

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: