|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 24, 2018 20:49:38 GMT
gozzy
So you are asking us to make up your mind for you?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 24, 2018 21:39:22 GMT
You can see material objects in religion just as much as you can see a baseball. There are tablets, crosses, books, highly artistic works and so on. The actual "god" is however perhaps better described as a "system of ethics" or among the "complex and nebulous forces in society and nature." Such things definitely exist beyond any reasonable doubt. I fully agree that items such as tablets, crosses, books, artistic works, etc. exist beyond a reasonable doubt. The (more than) reasonable doubt comes into play when a person references the god/gods that these artifacts are attributed/related to. Abstract, complex and nebulous forces in nature and society, I'm sure you're capable of understanding them.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 24, 2018 23:31:28 GMT
I fully agree that items such as tablets, crosses, books, artistic works, etc. exist beyond a reasonable doubt. The (more than) reasonable doubt comes into play when a person references the god/gods that these artifacts are attributed/related to. Abstract, complex and nebulous forces in nature and society, I'm sure you're capable of understanding them. Things can be complex without being abstract or nebulous. You know exactly the point I'm making!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2018 0:30:29 GMT
1 ... there is no logical reason why the god he prefers necessarily exists over all the other candidates just because he and his culture prefers a particular candidate, especially when the non-mythlogical evidence (or lack of it) is the same for all. ... 2 ... There is no logical reason why something permanent cannot exist in nature at a most basic level just as it can argued for in the supernatural. ... 1 There is as much evidence for his god as there is for baseball. It is the center of a widespread, satisfying and cherished human activity. 2 The obvious irreversible bias of nature toward entropy challenges that belief. It does require something not known in nature, something not subject to entropy to rewind it. And it is an apt comparison. Humans made up baseball, so it seems likely humans made up the belief in god which is a widespread, satisfying and cherished human activity.
It seems just as east to assume there is something...many...MANY MANY things about nature not known. And I have no reason to assume there is not something that will "rewind" entropy, or more likely, there is some basic element of nature which is NOT subject to entropy from which the "entropy-subject" universe we see emerged/s just like the theists must believe their God is...ie not subject to entropy. Perhaps theists think we know more about nature than we really do and are too quick to "throw in the towel" and assume what lies beyond must be something different than nature.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2018 1:37:11 GMT
1 There is as much evidence for his god as there is for baseball. It is the center of a widespread, satisfying and cherished human activity. 2 The obvious irreversible bias of nature toward entropy challenges that belief. It does require something not known in nature, something not subject to entropy to rewind it. And it is an apt comparison. Humans made up baseball, so it seems likely humans made up the belief in god which is a widespread, satisfying and cherished human activity.
It seems just as east to assume there is something...many...MANY MANY things about nature not known. And I have no reason to assume there is not something that will "rewind" entropy, or more likely, there is some basic element of nature which is NOT subject to entropy from which the "entropy-subject" universe we see emerged/s just like the theists must believe their God is...ie not subject to entropy. Perhaps theists think we know more about nature than we really do and are too quick to "throw in the towel" and assume what lies beyond must be something different than nature.
See what I said to FilmFlaneur ... You lose the argument as it was originally intended. Evolution was originally used (not always correctly) to explain away the need for a nature full of surprises and fantastic possibilities. The original claim was that mundane forces known in nature could assemble the first life. The argument has since gone to a nature full of fantastic possibilities that would make a god blush.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2018 9:26:58 GMT
...more God of the Gaps crapola, though I haven't studied it carefully! Should I? Probably not. You've captured the essence. There's lots of big words and lofty thoughts, but in the end, he emphasizes two things. One, that the God...the REAL God that atheists don't think exists isn't comparable to the "gods and fairies" that theists don't think exist. I think he fails to understand why atheists might casually make the comparison and thinks we really can't tell the difference between someone imagining a fairy at the end of the garden which one uses to explain some little inexplicable event like the watering can always being over-turned and the water dumped out every night vs someone else imagining an end-all be-all existence which explains big philosophical and metaphysical problems, mysteries, enigmas, quandries and conundrums.
He claims:
And two that the REAL God is the basis for all existence and has to be outside of the natural world, because, I guess in this guy's opinion, we know pretty much everything about the natural world and so far haven't figured out how it can exist without some other kind of existence which explains the existence of this natural world. He takes all the problems, mysteries, enigmas, quandries and conundrums about existence, bundles them then pushes that bundle out of the natural world and conveniently plops it into some other unknown, inexplicable and forever unknowable world/existence/being and calls it a day. But he doesn't explain how this other existence just happens to exist and then seems satisfied that the problems, mysteries, enigmas, quandries and conundrums of existence have been solved.
So, yes it is the God of the gaps crapola. The gap is, admittedly, a big yawning chasm, but it is a gap nonetheless and his solution answers it no better than the fairy at the end of the garden explains the over-turned watering can.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2018 9:28:37 GMT
And it is an apt comparison. Humans made up baseball, so it seems likely humans made up the belief in god which is a widespread, satisfying and cherished human activity.
It seems just as east to assume there is something...many...MANY MANY things about nature not known. And I have no reason to assume there is not something that will "rewind" entropy, or more likely, there is some basic element of nature which is NOT subject to entropy from which the "entropy-subject" universe we see emerged/s just like the theists must believe their God is...ie not subject to entropy. Perhaps theists think we know more about nature than we really do and are too quick to "throw in the towel" and assume what lies beyond must be something different than nature.
See what I said to FilmFlaneur ... You lose the argument as it was originally intended. Evolution was originally used (not always correctly) to explain away the need for a nature full of surprises and fantastic possibilities. The original claim was that mundane forces known in nature could assemble the first life. The argument has since gone to a nature full of fantastic possibilities that would make a god blush. The essay wasn't about evolution or how life came to be. It was much more basic than that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2018 10:13:02 GMT
See what I said to FilmFlaneur ... You lose the argument as it was originally intended. Evolution was originally used (not always correctly) to explain away the need for a nature full of surprises and fantastic possibilities. The original claim was that mundane forces known in nature could assemble the first life. The argument has since gone to a nature full of fantastic possibilities that would make a god blush. The essay wasn't about evolution or how life came to be. It was much more basic than that. The intelligent designer and the god that is the subject of religious activity are indeed different ideas with different arguments to support them, but they get mixed together in many discussions.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2018 10:44:58 GMT
The essay wasn't about evolution or how life came to be. It was much more basic than that. The intelligent designer and the god that is the subject of religious activity are indeed different ideas with different arguments to support them, but they get mixed together in many discussions. How is that an example?
As for evolution, he does not address it, but I could well believe the author believed in evolution...full, naturally-based evolution and still contend that the philosophical and metaphysical basis of all existence is God.
And as far as my comment, that is directly related to the subject in that the author claims
IOW, apparently he assumes that because nature if full of what appear to be contingent things, that nature in its entirety is contingent...which it may very well not be. IOW, what we don't now might be the answer.
But the biggest problem is that he simply pushes the conundrum back a level, behind an impenetrable veil and leaves it there claiming THAT level needs no explanation. He special pleads HIS explanation by saying it needs no explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2018 11:06:32 GMT
The intelligent designer and the god that is the subject of religious activity are indeed different ideas with different arguments to support them, but they get mixed together in many discussions. How is that an example?
As for evolution, he does not address it, but I could well believe the author believed in evolution...full, naturally-based evolution and still contend that the philosophical and metaphysical basis of all existence is God.
And as far as my comment, that is directly related to the subject in that the author claims
IOW, apparently he assumes that because nature if full of what appear to be contingent things, that nature in its entirety is contingent...which it may very well not be. IOW, what we don't now might be the answer.
But the biggest problem is that he simply pushes the conundrum back a level, behind an impenetrable veil and leaves it there claiming THAT level needs no explanation. He special pleads HIS explanation by saying it needs no explanation.
I think I understand your complaint better now. It remains however just this simple, there are two categories, "natural" and "supernatural." Whatever doesn't go in the "natural" category then goes in the "supernatural" category. Yes, there were times long before "science" came along that things were put in the supernatural category only to be found later to fit in the natural category just fine. Those were primitive times though. That everything must fit in the natural category is not a logical conclusion to draw from that. Since science came along there remain several things that still don't fit in the natural category. Rather comprehensive science is at a loss to fit them there. A fair argument might be that science has reached its limits. If something hasn't been put in the natural category by now, it isn't very likely it will be later.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2018 13:33:11 GMT
How is that an example?
As for evolution, he does not address it, but I could well believe the author believed in evolution...full, naturally-based evolution and still contend that the philosophical and metaphysical basis of all existence is God.
And as far as my comment, that is directly related to the subject in that the author claims
IOW, apparently he assumes that because nature if full of what appear to be contingent things, that nature in its entirety is contingent...which it may very well not be. IOW, what we don't now might be the answer.
But the biggest problem is that he simply pushes the conundrum back a level, behind an impenetrable veil and leaves it there claiming THAT level needs no explanation. He special pleads HIS explanation by saying it needs no explanation.
I think I understand your complaint better now. It remains however just this simple, there are two categories, "natural" and "supernatural." Whatever doesn't go in the "natural" category then goes in the "supernatural" category. Yes, there were times long before "science" came along that things were put in the supernatural category only to be found later to fit in the natural category just fine. Those were primitive times though. That everything must fit in the natural category is not a logical conclusion to draw from that. Since science came along there remain several things that still don't fit in the natural category. Rather comprehensive science is at a loss to fit them there. A fair argument might be that science has reached its limits. If something hasn't been put in the natural category by now, it isn't very likely it will be later. I read in a lay physics book...but can't remember the author/title...that there will ALWAYS be an element of the natural that humans can never figure out because it is at a scale we can't explore. The upshot was that regardless of how much detail we ferret out, how "small" a scale we explore or how far back in time we see or how far ahead we try to predict, there will always be that part we can't see. It is that part that will always, IMHO provide the basis for concluding going beyond the "natural" is unnecessary. The natural will never be fully known. His point was that setting out to find the TOE is folly, because when we get "there" there will always be a smaller/larger scale we can't see into, so at best, it would be a tentative conclusion, unproven and unfalsifiable.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 25, 2018 22:14:03 GMT
How is that an example?
As for evolution, he does not address it, but I could well believe the author believed in evolution...full, naturally-based evolution and still contend that the philosophical and metaphysical basis of all existence is God.
And as far as my comment, that is directly related to the subject in that the author claims
IOW, apparently he assumes that because nature if full of what appear to be contingent things, that nature in its entirety is contingent...which it may very well not be. IOW, what we don't now might be the answer.
But the biggest problem is that he simply pushes the conundrum back a level, behind an impenetrable veil and leaves it there claiming THAT level needs no explanation. He special pleads HIS explanation by saying it needs no explanation.
I think I understand your complaint better now. It remains however just this simple, there are two categories, "natural" and "supernatural." Whatever doesn't go in the "natural" category then goes in the "supernatural" category. Yes, there were times long before "science" came along that things were put in the supernatural category only to be found later to fit in the natural category just fine. Those were primitive times though. That everything must fit in the natural category is not a logical conclusion to draw from that. Since science came along there remain several things that still don't fit in the natural category. Rather comprehensive science is at a loss to fit them there. A fair argument might be that science has reached its limits. If something hasn't been put in the natural category by now, it isn't very likely it will be later. …except that if there is no supernatural, then everything can be explained by the natural...we may not fully understand it, butt there is a physical explanation, unlike your God of the Gaps which says 'if I can't explain it, it MUST be God/supernatural'.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2018 22:38:33 GMT
I think I understand your complaint better now. It remains however just this simple, there are two categories, "natural" and "supernatural." Whatever doesn't go in the "natural" category then goes in the "supernatural" category. Yes, there were times long before "science" came along that things were put in the supernatural category only to be found later to fit in the natural category just fine. Those were primitive times though. That everything must fit in the natural category is not a logical conclusion to draw from that. Since science came along there remain several things that still don't fit in the natural category. Rather comprehensive science is at a loss to fit them there. A fair argument might be that science has reached its limits. If something hasn't been put in the natural category by now, it isn't very likely it will be later. …except that if there is no supernatural, then everything can be explained by the natural...we may not fully understand it, butt there is a physical explanation, unlike your God of the Gaps which says 'if I can't explain it, it MUST be God/supernatural'. You are doing a very good job of proving that atheists are not logical. The "god-of-gaps" is not a failure of any logic, insofar as the word "god" simply means "supernatural" or simply means "you can't explain it." Anything that can't be explained is the god of the the gaps by definition. That is no failure of logic. You fail logic when you demand that everything must be explained even when it is obvious you can't explain them.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 26, 2018 0:01:12 GMT
…except that if there is no supernatural, then everything can be explained by the natural...we may not fully understand it, butt there is a physical explanation, unlike your God of the Gaps which says 'if I can't explain it, it MUST be God/supernatural'. You are doing a very good job of proving that atheists are not logical. The "god-of-gaps" is not a failure of any logic, insofar as the word "god" simply means "supernatural" or simply means "you can't explain it." Anything that can't be explained is the god of the the gaps by definition. That is no failure of logic. You fail logic when you demand that everything must be explained even when it is obvious you can't explain them. No. Why?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 26, 2018 11:20:13 GMT
Anything that can't be explained is the god of the the gaps by definitionWhich is nonsense. There is a big, and obvious, difference between saying 'we know that at the present we don't what causes something', to saying 'I believe that, in the absence of any (scientific) explanation, I am suggesting that the supernatural must be responsible'. That is the difference between admitted ignorance and implicit credulity.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 26, 2018 11:23:33 GMT
Since science came along there remain several things that still don't fit in the natural category. Rather comprehensive science is at a loss to fit them there... If something hasn't been put in the natural category by now, it isn't very likely it will be later.
Give 'comprehensive science' a chance, and list some examples then.
The Federal judge at the landmark Dover trial decided differently, that creationism is exactly the same as intelligent design. This was shown by the evidenced, and clumsy substitutions of the one phrase for the other in the infamous Pandas and People textbook. The judge in the Dover trial specifically referred to Pandas in his decision, stating: QED
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 26, 2018 11:59:53 GMT
You are doing a very good job of proving that atheists are not logical. The "god-of-gaps" is not a failure of any logic, insofar as the word "god" simply means "supernatural" or simply means "you can't explain it." Anything that can't be explained is the god of the the gaps by definition. That is no failure of logic. You fail logic when you demand that everything must be explained even when it is obvious you can't explain them. No. Why? Perhaps you think that placing unexplainable things in a separate category is merely a "convenience" that doesn't mean as much as some fundamentalists might think it means. Yes it is very convenient, I won't deny that. It is both logical and organized to put things you can explain in one category, the natural, and things you can't explain in a different category, for lack of a better term the "supernatural." Your strong emotional reaction to the "supernatural" category is entirely unwarranted. It is neither logical nor organized. Your attempts to put things you can explain and things you can't into one category is obviously disorganized, illogical and arrogant. When atheists in debates accuse their opponents of a god-of-the-gaps flaw in reasoning they are actually pointing out their own flaws, which are many.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 26, 2018 21:31:35 GMT
Perhaps you think that placing unexplainable things in a separate category is merely a "convenience" that doesn't mean as much as some fundamentalists might think it means. Yes it is very convenient, I won't deny that. It is both logical and organized to put things you can explain in one category, the natural, and things you can't explain in a different category, for lack of a better term the "supernatural." Your strong emotional reaction to the "supernatural" category is entirely unwarranted. It is neither logical nor organized. Your attempts to put things you can explain and things you can't into one category is obviously disorganized, illogical and arrogant. When atheists in debates accuse their opponents of a god-of-the-gaps flaw in reasoning they are actually pointing out their own flaws, which are many. What is 'illogical', is you putting anything that is 'supernatural' in any 'logical' category. I suggest you take more notice of the thread title, and I would suggest to you that using your 'logic' you would similarly believe in fairies, ghosts, wherewolves and the like. Further, even if you have neatly categorised them as things you can't explain, you are still left with zero logical reason nor evidence of their existence. Hence the process is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 26, 2018 21:58:02 GMT
Perhaps you think that placing unexplainable things in a separate category is merely a "convenience" that doesn't mean as much as some fundamentalists might think it means. Yes it is very convenient, I won't deny that. It is both logical and organized to put things you can explain in one category, the natural, and things you can't explain in a different category, for lack of a better term the "supernatural." Your strong emotional reaction to the "supernatural" category is entirely unwarranted. It is neither logical nor organized. Your attempts to put things you can explain and things you can't into one category is obviously disorganized, illogical and arrogant. When atheists in debates accuse their opponents of a god-of-the-gaps flaw in reasoning they are actually pointing out their own flaws, which are many. What is 'illogical', is you putting anything that is 'supernatural' in any 'logical' category. I suggest you take more notice of the thread title, and I would suggest to you that using your 'logic' you would similarly believe in fairies, ghosts, wherewolves and the like. Further, even if you have neatly categorised them as things you can't explain, you are still left with zero logical reason nor evidence of their existence. Hence the process is meaningless. I have never seen any fairies myself, but it would not be logical to conclude that no one has. Who died and made you arbiter of what is or isn't logical?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 26, 2018 22:13:03 GMT
What is 'illogical', is you putting anything that is 'supernatural' in any 'logical' category. I suggest you take more notice of the thread title, and I would suggest to you that using your 'logic' you would similarly believe in fairies, ghosts, wherewolves and the like. Further, even if you have neatly categorised them as things you can't explain, you are still left with zero logical reason nor evidence of their existence. Hence the process is meaningless. I have never seen any fairies myself, but it would not be logical to conclude that no one has. Who died and made you arbiter of what is or isn't logical? Well, if someone has, there would be some proof other than anecdotal evidence....much like God. Well, it wasn't Jesus Christ...that's for sure!
|
|