Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2016, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 10:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 05:48 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(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?

No, it is different standards, and with good reason. There is a difference between believing something is absolutely true without evidence (a doctrinal requirement of religion), and scaling the strength of one's belief based on the availability of evidence.

If I was a evolutionary biologist and could dig into the minutia is population genetics and endogenous retroviruses, my certainty in the validity of evolution would be much stronger. But I'm not. However I do understand the scientific method. I have read books, listened to lectures, taken classes, done experiments, and I can keep up more than well enough to be convinced in the validity of the Theory of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I have seen the evidence, and evaluated it; and I have reasons to trust the professional opinions of experts far more well versed in the subject than myself, as backed up by the knowledge that I do have (such as the aforementioned scientific method).

That is not the same as someone in a congregation, ignorant of the state of biblical studies, archaeology, and cultural anthropology, who believes that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat form a magical tree.

Those two belief structures are not equivalent. That you lack the comprehension to appreciate the difference is not my problem, but rather belies your own ineptitude.



(18-11-2016 05:48 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
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.

Perception doesn't change facts.

What happened to your assertion that they all have incentive to prove each other wrong?


(18-11-2016 05:48 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
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?

It was a response to this, lest you forget.

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

So no, that's a Reductio ad Absurdum (reduction to absurdity), dipshit. I'm lampooning your assertion that only personal experience 'counts' as evidence. Drinking Beverage





(18-11-2016 05:48 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
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.

Indeed. I personally find that the purposely obtuse often raise my ire.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Also, on a related note, at the end of the day (just for you, KC Tongue ), creation, evolution, science, god, religion; all these things are essentially stories we tell ourselves to calm our fears.

As an atheist (and a prophet Laugh out load ) I prefer the scientific narrative 1) it is fortified by the scientific method 2-z) a bunch of other reasons, mainly marketing. The historical record clearly indicates which narrative leads towards progress.

But I also feel that the atheist narrative is frequently narrated by voices too enamored of self-generated concepts of truth and righteousness. In the broader sense of a public forum, I'm entirely awash in self-righteous ('cause marketing), but the bashing of individuals for their alternate conclusions I'm not always on board with (frequently totally guilty of laughing my ass off, however) Tongue

For instance, say you have your average stump level American audience gathered together to hear the definitive logical, mathematical, and scientific debunking of god. Only the speaker is French...

I think many atheists forget their conceptual framework in their expression of "the truth." Myself, I have the mathematical, scientific background; the fat ol' IQ, so I'm like the "ideal" atheist. However I have friends that are fluffier than my cat; this doesn't invalidate their comforting story or make it "untrue."

At least until they try to market it. Tongue

('Cept for my Gwynnies. I should actually hunt that girl down and beat her about the head with the staff of reason. Laugh out load )

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 01:53 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Looks like we have here someone who is in some regards similar to KerimF. Which does not speak in his favour.

If his main counter argument is "have you personally done/seen/calculated/experienced/etc....", then he either is too ignorant or to dishonest to acknowledge how silly his position is.
This is because......if you havent designed your own car, or at least re-calculated everything, then you wont believe aka. "have faith" that it works, right? Facepalm

I really dont get these mental masturbation guys who stick to philosopical absurdites.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
18-11-2016, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 01:22 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(17-11-2016 11:21 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  There are over several billion religions in the world Sitasky, no one Christian is the same, no one atheist is the same. Sorry for assuming you harbored a belief in the big bang, but you also shouldn't assume that all Christians believe everything in their bible, quite the opposite in fact. See above for the several billion religions comment. Everyone is going to have their own opinion and while it may seem illogical for a religion to have people who don't believe everything in the religion that's just how people are.

Having said that, if you're not trying to convince them that the universe had a beginning what are you trying to convince them of? What should you care what they believe?

First of all I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I was just demonstrating how someone could answer the question of something coming from nothing and yes I was using the most common religion on the planet as an example, even if it's not a Christian it could be Jew or a Muslim, they all believe in the same God and the same creation story. Even if it's a Hindu they believe in Brahma the creator.

Also there are not several billion religions, there are only 7 billion people in the world, that would be almost one religion for every person there is. Even if you are counting every denomination that would be way too many. There are maybe around 5,000 religions currently being practiced and that's still rounding up, I mean actual religions and not just some guy saying "I believe that the Mother Earth is our God, we should treat her better." I mean with a holy book involved, rules for believing, a reward/punishment system for not believing, etc.

I have never in my life ever went out of my way to convince anyone to be an atheist or to even destroy their concepts of God or religion so no I don't have to "give anything in return" , they're not giving anything to me so I don't owe them a damn thing. I may be explaining how I think or reason but I could care less how they think or reason. They are the one's with something to prove, not me.

I don't understand why you care if I care about changing someone's mind. Does that bother you? If I actually did go around to churches reading aloud every piece of evidence of a godless world would that be unwise or unfair to you? I stopped caring a long time ago and this whole argument you are making of "Not every Christian believes their holy book...actually they don't." makes no sense at all and I don't get why you even bring it up, am I supposed to create an argument that would work for every single situation of what every single human may believe about our origins? It's not even that hard, I don't know, you don't either, the end!

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
18-11-2016, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 01:40 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
Hello again. Smile

(18-11-2016 01:35 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Dear Celestial_Wonder.

Please stop equivocating.

Thanks. Thumbsup

(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But this one I put forward that Theists don't believe without proof but rather that their proof is different from our own.

If a Thiest 'Proof' is different from what ever the 'Standard meaning of proof' is, then THAT is a form of equivocating.

Okay?

(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

What we both believe in (As well as how we're actually using even the word 'Belief') is neither here nor there.

If we both want to have an engaging conversation with each other to productively pass ideas/information/etc to each other then we must both agree to what words 'definitively' mean. That said words mean the same thing to each of us and that we stick to said agreed, identical meanings.

Other wise we can post strings of words at each other for eternity and... well.. pretty much not actually do anything towards developing understanding of one an-others thoughts/ideas.

Thumbsup

(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Now what we define as proof and what is not proof that varies.

*Sigh*

No, not if we actually want to meaningfully communicate with one another... it does not.

(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  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.

That there is a lot of evidence for the 'Universe' existing does nothing and goes no way to showing that any deity might/does exist. The two are not synonymous.

Though, now that you've stated your desire to use 'Belief' in your own specific way. Will you also in some future way highlight or otherwise now constantly indicate when you are using your 'Belief(A)' term in a sentence and when you are suing the normal 'Belief(B)' term in a sentence?

(18-11-2016 02:08 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Is that equivocating?

No, I am thinking that is a different word play... the actual term their of escapes me at the moment.

Other, more savvy and awake, forum members might be able to point out the problem with the above "Deity = Reality" comment.

Cheers to your self. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
18-11-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 07:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it is different standards, and with good reason. There is a difference between believing something is absolutely true without evidence (a doctrinal requirement of religion), and scaling the strength of one's belief based on the availability of evidence.

Pretty much you both rely on eye witness testimony.

Quote:If I was a evolutionary biologist and could dig into the minutia is population genetics and endogenous retroviruses, my certainty in the validity of evolution would be much stronger. But I'm not. However I do understand the scientific method. I have read books, listened to lectures, taken classes, done experiments, and I can keep up more than well enough to be convinced in the validity of the Theory of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. I have seen the evidence, and evaluated it; and I have reasons to trust the professional opinions of experts far more well versed in the subject than myself, as backed up by the knowledge that I do have (such as the aforementioned scientific method).

That is not the same as someone in a congregation, ignorant of the state of biblical studies, archaeology, and cultural anthropology, who believes that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat form a magical tree.

Those two belief structures are not equivalent. That you lack the comprehension to appreciate the difference is not my problem, but rather belies your own ineptitude.

I know how they're different, but you just admitted it yourself, they're belief structures, thus they may be different, but they are equivalent.



Quote:Perception doesn't change facts.

What happened to your assertion that they all have incentive to prove each other wrong?

If the facts could be changed they were always perception in the first place.


Quote:It was a response to this, lest you forget.

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

So no, that's a Reductio ad Absurdum (reduction to absurdity), dipshit. I'm lampooning your assertion that only personal experience 'counts' as evidence. Drinking Beverage

How would you define empirical evidence then if not based on experience?

Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? If the Plaintiff accused the defendant of a crime but all he had to back up his claim was pure conjecture?

Quote:Indeed. I personally find that the purposely obtuse often raise my ire.

am I being obtuse in my explanation or are you being obtuse in your understanding?

(18-11-2016 11:10 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Looks like have have here someone who is in some regards similar to KerimF. Which does not speak in his favour.

If his main counter argument is "have you personally done/seen/calculated/experienced/etc....", then he either is too ignorant or to dishonest to acknowledge how silly his position is.
This is because......if you havent designed your own car, or at least re-calculated everything, then you wont believe aka. "have faith" that it works, right? Facepalm

I really dont get these mental masturbation guys who stick to philosopical absurdites.

Its called empirical evidence, its what real scientists with real proof use to gain their theories. Theories that we later accept on mere words and consensus.

I'm humbled that you would compare me to KerimF him and I do share some similar beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 01:38 PM
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???

How did your god come from nothing?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 01:38 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Its called empirical evidence, its what real scientists with real proof use to gain their theories. Theories that we later accept on mere words and consensus.

I'm humbled that you would compare me to KerimF him and I do share some similar beliefs.

I did compare you with Kerim, exactly because you have this really stupid common way of thinking. My intention was not to insult you but to point out how silly that particular argument actually is. I hope i have shaken you a bit (since i am confident you know exactly how silly his argument is when he brings it forth) and you may question your belief regarding this. But maybe i am wrong and you dont.

Interestingly, now you are talking about empirical evidence, scientists and (scientific) theories as if you exactly knew what you are talking about, yet in yur previous posts you made the equivocation of comparing "faith" in scientifically gained knowledge with "faith" in silly assertions taken from a set of weird scrptures.

I am really (still) puzzled about you. You seem educated and intelligent enough to argue non-trivia, yet you are -at times- bringing forth arguments i would only attribute to someone very stupid or ignorant. You are even doubling down on it as can be seen here.
Quote:How would you define empirical evidence then if not based on experience?


I am still trying to figure you out.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 02:13 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 01:35 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again. Smile

Greetings.

(18-11-2016 01:35 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  What we both believe in (As well as how we're actually using even the word 'Belief') is neither here nor there.

If we both want to have an engaging conversation with each other to productively pass ideas/information/etc to each other then we must both agree to what words 'definitively' mean. That said words mean the same thing to each of us and that we stick to said agreed, identical meanings.

Other wise we can post strings of words at each other for eternity and... well.. pretty much not actually do anything towards developing understanding of one an-others thoughts/ideas.

Thumbsup

We went past this point, we are now trying to convince evolutionkills that he believes without proof. I think its going pretty well.

Quote:That there is a lot of evidence for the 'Universe' existing does nothing and goes no way to showing that any deity might/does exist. The two are not synonymous.

Though, now that you've stated your desire to use 'Belief' in your own specific way. Will you also in some future way highlight or otherwise now constantly indicate when you are using your 'Belief(A)' term in a sentence and when you are suing the normal 'Belief(B)' term in a sentence?

I wasn't trying to say that there was a lot of evidence for a god, I was just trying to help him understand things from a theists' perspective.


Quote:No, I am thinking that is a different word play... the actual term their of escapes me at the moment.

Semantics?

Quote:Other, more savvy and awake, forum members might be able to point out the problem with the above "Deity = Reality" comment.

Cheers to your self. Thumbsup

Cheers to you as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: Why is there something rather than nothing argument????
(18-11-2016 02:07 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  We went past this point, we are now trying to convince evolutionkills that he believes without proof. I think its going pretty well.

As a matter of fact, it is not.

You asking "Have you performed the experiments?" is essentially the same as a YEC asking "Where you there?" when discussing fossilization.

You are starting to sound very familiar.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: