News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sorginak

Quote from: Baruch on September 22, 2017, 07:22:48 PM
Hamlet much?  Must be crowded even when you are the only one in your nut shell.

People keep trying to crack me out of this human shell, but no luck. 

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 21, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
In this one sentence you are making huge assumptions.  The universe exists.  We know that.  'Sentient' beings exist.  What do you mean by that?  Do you assume humans alone can think and feel?  I would suggest that many more of the objects on and in the earth can do that.  Don't all animals--all life forms (yet, even scientists cannot fully agree on what 'life' is) and even plant forms feel if not think?  They all seem to react to the environment they are in.  You personify nature using the term 'mindless' as though a mind is needed to create, or that nature has a mind or needs to.  What do you mean by 'mind'?  Can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  We don't know that yet; but it would seem so.  But we are working on it, scientifically.  If you think a 'creator' is behind all of this, then test for it.

The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 

QuoteCan a non sentient system create a sentient one?

That's a damn good question, one we wouldn't have to answer if sentient humans beings didn't exist. Not only do such beings exist, but the conditions to cause such beings obtained as well. A second line of inquiry opens can non-sentient systems create a habit for sentient beings minus plan or intent to do so? I don't know the answer to that one either but barring knowing how certain can I be it was mindless forces? I do know that human beings using intelligence, science and engineering can do amazing things that seem to require planning to accomplish true?

QuoteYes, you can say you 'believe' your hypothesis is possible, but there are not a single fact; not a single experiment that you can use to establish a fact that would indicate your hypothesis is possible.  It is a belief; a wishful thought.

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM
The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 
Really?  What does the word 'sentient' mean to you?

For me, this is what it is: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
All things alive are sentient.  That means my pets, the earth worms in my back yard, the bacteria in my gut; anything alive.  And what complicates that is that there is no universal scientific definition of what life is.  This is as close as I have found:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[15][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

So, can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  The scientific community is working on the answer--just don't expect it any time soon.  Virus' are alive--but maybe not.  Can't decide--not yet.  So, what in our world is actually alive and what is actually not alive.  Your view of the world is much too simplistic; there are really no cut-and-dried answers.  There is almost always an array of answers or partial answers.  That seems to really, really bother theists.  I would say that at this point there is some decent reasons to think a non sentient system can create life.  On the other hand, is there any evidence that a non sentient system even exists?  Yes, Drew, goddidit is such a simple answer; one that is wholly satisfying if one does not like to think or reason.  So, feel free to continue in you belief since it seems to make you feel better.  Just don't expect me to join you.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...
If you know that a hypothesis is possible for a god(s) or creator, then state it.  Remember, it has to be testable; otherwise it is simply a random thought or a belief.  So, people who create 'virtual universes' are gods.  Really.  It seems you confuse models with the real thing.  Those virtual universes you so love are models.  No matter how complicated, they are models.   So, people who create things are gods?  Are you the god of your daughter?  I'm not for mine.  If you create a new type of table, are you a god?  I don't think so.  BTW, the dark matter model may or may not be totally, or even partially correct.  But they will continue to tinker with it until it does become more accurate.  The same for the weather models that are used to predict the weather.  They are pretty good right now, but they are getting better.  Why?  Because the results of the models are always checked against reality and corrections to the model assumptions are made--predictions become more and more accurate. 

Drew, you just want to make everything simple and easy to understand.  And goddidit is very easy.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

sdelsolray

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 08:14:08 PM
If you know that a hypothesis is possible for a god(s) or creator, then state it.  Remember, it has to be testable; otherwise it is simply a random thought or a belief.  So, people who create 'virtual universes' are gods.  Really.  It seems you confuse models with the real thing.  Those virtual universes you so love are models.  No matter how complicated, they are models.   So, people who create things are gods?  Are you the god of your daughter?  I'm not for mine.  If you create a new type of table, are you a god?  I don't think so.  BTW, the dark matter model may or may not be totally, or even partially correct.  But they will continue to tinker with it until it does become more accurate.  The same for the weather models that are used to predict the weather.  They are pretty good right now, but they are getting better.  Why?  Because the results of the models are always checked against reality and corrections to the model assumptions are made--predictions become more and more accurate. 

Drew, you just want to make everything simple and easy to understand.  And goddidit is very easy.

Drew is repeating one of his favorite fallacies: B causes C therefore A causes B, i.e., humans create things therefore my sky fairy created humans.

He's really become a broken record that never hit the charts to begin with.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 01:07:22 PM
Drew, I wonder about your reading comprehension ability.  Or your ability to restate what someone has said.  As clearly as I can I will tell you what I think.  I contend that there are not ANY facts--not one--that supports the existence of god(s) or a creator.  Not a 'few' or 'not enough'--not ANY.  It is not my 'opinion'--it is a fact.  And if I am wrong in that last statement, please point me toward those facts that I am unaware of.

You are aware of several facts I've presented them numerous times you just deny they are evidence based on some self-serving definition that assures at the end of day you can declare no evidence here. I know you're an intelligent man so I assume you know what circumstantial evidence is. Sometimes its all scientists, or criminal investigators have to infer a cause. For instance it was calculated there wasn't enough matter to prevent galaxies from spinning apart. So they inferred without any direct evidence the existence of (you'll love this) unknown invisible matter. You might feel vindicated because when the idea was first presented it was scoffed at by the skeptics. Think about it Zwicky proposed unknown invisible matter was responsible for the extra gravity that is keeping galaxies from flying apart. He might as well have said invisible angels are holding galaxies together. Now, its all but been confirmed that unknown invisible matter exists. By playing God with a virtual galaxies scientists simply increased the gravity until it matched observations and concluded there is 6 times more unknown invisible matter that known visible matter. The reason he inferred the existence is because it explained what was observed.

I infer the existence of an invisible Creator made of unknown substance because (IMHO) it better explains what we observe than the counter claim it was caused by mindless mechanistic forces that didn't intend anything to exist including their own existence. I don't care if you believe that or not. What I do object to is the constant suggestion that I believe this for no reason or fact and therefore I'm just as likely to believe in ghosts, astrology, fairies, invisible pink elephants and of course Santa Claus. If we could observe a chaotic lifeless universe devoid of any laws of physics that would comport exactly with the narrative it was caused unintentionally by mindless forces and I'd have no reason to infer the existence of a Creator. Instead we find ourselves in a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms and formula's can be derived. You can say those facts don't persuade you the slightest and you believe a naturalistic explanation is forthcoming. Don't say I'm not presenting facts that lead me to conclude otherwise. 
   
QuoteOf course I deny god(s) exist.  There is no proof it does.  I have proof nature exists--none for god(s).  The second proof is given that god(s) exist, I will instantly become a believer. 

Again I concede nature exists, not that I ever contested it or that I'm contesting it now. The argument is about what caused nature...natural forces or a Creator.

QuoteWhy have 'qualms' about what theists believe?  It matters not what your private beliefs are.  What matters is that theists insist that I believe as they do and they pass laws that forces their views onto me.

I agree. What law was passed that forced a view on you?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Unbeliever

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 07:20:43 PM
Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!
It reminds me of the hot dog vendor who wanted to charge a million bucks for a hot dog. When it was pointed out that he probably wouldn't sell very many at that price, he replied that he only needs to sell one.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 22, 2017, 10:33:44 PM
It reminds me of the hot dog vendor who wanted to charge a million bucks for a hot dog. When it was pointed out that he probably wouldn't sell very many at that price, he replied that he only needs to sell one.

I originally heard that about a car salesman, but I agree.  To a theist, getting one convert is worth almost any cost of honor or logic.  Any lie or fear that works is worthwhile.  It gets THEM into heaven in their mind...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Drew_2017

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 22, 2017, 11:50:29 AM

You can't post without failing "logic 101", can you? Sorry to inform you, but the burden of proof is all yours. It is not up to us to prove your claim false, it is up to you (if you care about convincing anybody) to prove your claim true. Just to remind you, you are the one that is "multiplying entities without necessity", as is stated by Occam's razor.

While pretending to make no claim you continue to insert claims just the same. For instance you claim I'm 'multiplying entities without necessity.' How do you know a Creator isn't necessary? How do you know you're not subtracting entities below necessity?

QuoteYou mean to be intellectually honest? To admit that we don't know things? What a horrible concept.

So in fact you don't know if a Creator is necessary or unnecessary. Since you make a claim please present the evidence you demand of me. Could a laptop come into existence without a creator? Could natural forces cause a virtual universe to exist or can natural forces only cause a real universe to exist without plan or intent to do so?

QuoteSo far, have scientists ever drilled down into any phenomena, and NOT found natural explanations? Everything we now understand about the universe, was once thought to have supernatural explanations. Lightning, disease, floods, earthquakes, famine, planetary orbits, etc, etc, were all once thought to be supernaturally controlled. The record has not been kind to you 'superstitionalists'.

I beg to differ one of the superstionalists was Isaac Newton who believed the universe was knowable, explicable in mathematical terms, that formulas could be derived and that laws of logic, induction and deduction will apply. He operated on that premise because he believed the universe was intentionally caused by an intelligent agent. Did he fall flat on his face operating on such a nonsensical premise? To the contrary he's considered one of the greatest scientists of our time.

QuoteI do not believe anything on faith. Please let me know what you think I believe on faith.

Do you believe scientists will continue to drill down and find 'naturalistic' answers? At this point they've drilled down to the beginning of the universe and hypothesize the universe came from a singularity, a phenomena in which the laws of physics we are familiar with don't apply. Does natural just mean not God?


QuoteAnd no, your fallacious arguments presented in your link, are not, in any way, shape or form "evidence".

You are making a claim correct? Please provide evidence the arguments are fallacious, as you recall those who make claims have the burden of proof.

Evidence are just facts that comport with a hypothesis. The facts I presented comport with that belief. I know the claim of no evidence is foundational to all atheists but in particular the atheist who claims he only has a lack of belief.



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Simon Moon

#294
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 23, 2017, 01:09:25 PM
While pretending to make no claim you continue to insert claims just the same. For instance you claim I'm 'multiplying entities without necessity.' How do you know a Creator isn't necessary? How do you know you're not subtracting entities below necessity?

Because, so far, what we have found, is that there seem to be a continually growing number of natural explanations for everything we examine. Name one time, that scientists have ever looked into an extant phenomena, where, based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, a supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct one, or at least likely the correct one.

And, since you are the one claiming that a god is responsible for 'creation', until you can produce demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, you are the one that is multiplying entities. You just can't seem to understand, that "We don't know YET", is the most intellectually honest answer.

I don't know that a creator is not necessary. But considering the lack of any demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support such a claim, I will continue to be unconvinced that a creator is necessary.

QuoteSo in fact you don't know if a Creator is necessary or unnecessary. Since you make a claim please present the evidence you demand of me.

The only claim I am making is that the evidence to support the claim that a creator god exists, has not met its burden of proof. As long as that state of affairs continues, I will continue to not accept the claim that a god exists.

QuoteCould a laptop come into existence without a creator? Could natural forces cause a virtual universe to exist or can natural forces only cause a real universe to exist without plan or intent to do so?

Seriously?! The 'watchmaker' argument?

Yes, a laptop requires a creator. Actually, it requires 1000's of creators for: the OS, the chassis, the hard drive, the memory, the BIOS, the chipset, etc, etc, etc (so, you are arguing for many creator gods?). But we know that laptops are created objects, because we have decades of evidence built up to prove it. We have: plans, computer scientists that can me interviewed, hundreds of text books explaining how it is done, factories we can visit where all the parts are manufactured, etc, etc, etc.

We also have the same level of evidence for the ability of software engineers to create virtual universes using computers.

Do you have even close to the same level of evidence that a creator god is responsible for the universe? And no, a false analogy between the universe and a laptop is not evidence.

You claim we live in a universe that is entirely created. So, for you everything is a laptop. Why do you pick out one thing, a laptop, that is obviously different from a bush, and use it for your false analogy?

Complexity is not how we detect design. We detect design specifically by contrasting with nature.

You are guilty here, of the fallacy of composition. Just because you can point to specific items within space/time that are designed, does not mean that the same can be said of the universe itself.

QuoteI beg to differ one of the superstionalists was Isaac Newton who believed the universe was knowable, explicable in mathematical terms, that formulas could be derived and that laws of logic, induction and deduction will apply. He operated on that premise because he believed the universe was intentionally caused by an intelligent agent. Did he fall flat on his face operating on such a nonsensical premise? To the contrary he's considered one of the greatest scientists of our time.

His supernatural beliefs may have been his motivation to do his work, but his incredible discoveries were all due to empirical science. By the way, Newton also believed in alchemy. In fact I believe he wrote more about alchemy than he did about gods. You seem to ignore his silly beliefs about alchemy.

QuoteDo you believe scientists will continue to drill down and find 'naturalistic' answers? At this point they've drilled down to the beginning of the universe and hypothesize the universe came from a singularity, a phenomena in which the laws of physics we are familiar with don't apply. Does natural just mean not God?

Yes, I believe that scientists will continue to find naturalistic answers. This is not a faith based belief I have, it is one based on reasonable expectations.

Now, that is not to say that scientists will find answers to every question. Humanity may actually be blocked from finding answers to some questions. Yes, even the origins of the universe may be beyond what we can discover. At the point where we can't find answers, is it more intellectually honest to claim a god is responsible, or answer with "we don't know"?

QuoteYou are making a claim correct? Please provide evidence the arguments are fallacious, as you recall those who make claims have the burden of proof.

I am making the claim that science is the single best method ever discovered to explain the universe. Do I claim this with absolute certainty, no. Yes, I have the burden, and I think it is an easy case to make.

QuoteEvidence are just facts that comport with a hypothesis. The facts I presented comport with that belief. I know the claim of no evidence is foundational to all atheists but in particular the atheist who claims he only has a lack of belief.

No, facts come first, then the hypothesis. You got it exactly backwards. Maybe that's your problem, you have your hypothesis first, then you try to make the facts fit it.

I don't claim there is no evidence. Just drastically insufficient evidence to support the claim you are making.

When did you present facts? Please point me to them.

All I ever remember reading by you is your horribly fallacious arguments. Arguments are not facts.
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Cavebear

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 02:08:47 PM

I am making the claim that science is the single best method ever discovered to explain the universe. Do I claim this with absolute certainty, no. Yes, I have the burden, and I think it is an easy case to make.

No, facts come first, then the hypothesis. You got it exactly backwards. Maybe that's your problem, you have your hypothesis first, then you try to make the facts fit it.

I don't claim there is no evidence. Just drastically insufficient evidence to support the claim you are making.

When did you present facts? Please point me to them.

All I ever remember reading by you is your horribly fallacious arguments. Arguments are not facts.

I think that is what amuses me about "Biblical Scholars".  They have a conclusion in mind and only seek facts to support their desired conclusion.

I recall watching some awful cable show where they decided where Sodom was.  And then they found a nearby cave where and his daughters could have stayed.  And WOW, therefore that meant the nearby village must have been Sodom because,  after all, Lot and his daughter had been nearby.  LOL!  The circular logic can spin one's head around.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM
The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 

That's a damn good question, one we wouldn't have to answer if sentient humans beings didn't exist. Not only do such beings exist, but the conditions to cause such beings obtained as well. A second line of inquiry opens can non-sentient systems create a habit for sentient beings minus plan or intent to do so? I don't know the answer to that one either but barring knowing how certain can I be it was mindless forces? I do know that human beings using intelligence, science and engineering can do amazing things that seem to require planning to accomplish true?

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...

Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 02:31:12 PM
I think that is what amuses me about "Biblical Scholars".  They have a conclusion in mind and only seek facts to support their desired conclusion.

I recall watching some awful cable show where they decided where Sodom was.  And then they found a nearby cave where and his daughters could have stayed.  And WOW, therefore that meant the nearby village must have been Sodom because,  after all, Lot and his daughter had been nearby.  LOL!  The circular logic can spin one's head around.

True, bad scholars do that.  So do bad scientists.  Incompetence and mendacity isn't limited to theists.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sorginak

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:21:31 PM
True, bad scholars do that.  So do bad scientists.  Incompetence and mendacity isn't limited to theists.

At least I have the intelligence to not believe a word of anything produced by a bad scientist.  Can theists state the same for all the religious magic imaginatively concocted by their leaders?

Baruch

Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 03:29:44 PM
At least I have the intelligence to not believe a word of anything produced by a bad scientist.  Can theists state the same for all the religious magic imaginatively concocted by their leaders?

Straw man.  I was saying scholars ... aka experts/practitioners of the humanities.  As opposed to the inhumanities.  I follow no religious leaders ... it is an age/maturity thing.  Children and young adults seek guidance, but don't always find good guidance.  Knowing, as a lay person, who is a bad scientist, is admittedly difficult.  Including for the lay folk who post here.  That is inevitable however.  Science enthusiasts were even taken in by the cold fusion scammers, for awhile.  If a technical break thru is reported that pushes all your Star Wars buttons, it is hard not to be gullible.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.