|
Post by Sarge on Jun 24, 2022 21:38:14 GMT
Enjoy yourselves. I'll help get you back on track to your proof of assertions. Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 24, 2022 21:42:03 GMT
It depends on how a person defines proof.
All we have is evidence and degrees of confidence in the evidence.
The only certainty we can have is that we exist. There is no way anyone can prove that we aren't living in a simulation for example.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 24, 2022 21:55:10 GMT
It's true that some animals eat their babies either to weed out the weak or because of starvation, humans have done the same. For a long time it was normal to leave deformed babies to nature, basically let them die. And if a family is starving I wouldn't put it past them to eat their own. It's all civility and manners until SHTF.
That was the norm because back then people didn't have the understanding or the means of doing otherwise. Pouring as much time and resources and sacrifices in the last 100+ years to accommodate the deformed, handicapped, mentally retarded, etc., doesn't really mesh with 'survival of the fittest', and it's also not an ability becoming of any animal life form, nor having the brain power to invent anything. Man has invented millions of things great and small, from bread twists, to the toilet, to power plants, and in between things like blood banks, airplanes, traffic lights, computers, indoor plumbing, etc., what's one thing a dog or a chicken ever invented?
It isn't true that everybody would be horrified by a parent killing and eating their baby. The parent committing the act would be the obvious example of a person who wouldn't be horrified by the act. The reason most people would be horrified is a combination of the evolved emotion of empathy and social conditioning. Other species of animals have these same abilities, not just humans. Most species of animals aren't cannibals btw, but some are. One of the most cannibalistic species are snakes. The reason snakes are cannibals likely has to do with that during a certain point in their evolution they were in a situation where they had no access to anything else to eat besides eachother. This is probably the same reason why snakes have so many babies at once. Sometimes up to 30. This might also be why they didn't evolve into a social species. They don't need to get along with eachother in order to survive. Many mammal species rely on community in order to survive, because they evolved as pack animals. Humans are pack animals.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 24, 2022 22:02:35 GMT
If a case is going to be made there is something rather than nothing because something can come from nothing, it's probably best not to also say that nothing is something because nothing doesn't exist. Supernatural is defined as "not subject to explanation according to natural laws." Anything that can defy any natural law would be considered supernatural by definition. Isn't there a natural law that prevents uncaused effects? If so, either those particles are supernatural or the law needs to be revised ASAP. A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing. You say we know better, but do we really? If anything is possible, why not Zeus? When you open a box and the box happens it's empty we usually say there is nothing in there. But in reality, we know that there the empty box still contains air, possibly light and gravity is still functioning inside. The way I understand it, when Krauss says nothing he usually describing a vacuum. We have no indication that virtual particles apparently popping in and out of existence violates the "natural law". More likely, we don't have a full understanding of the Universe. This is especially true when dealing with stuff on the subatomic level where classical physics don't work the same way as they work on a macro scale. "A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing." A cause is necessary for the current state of the Universe. For all we know, the Universe as in "all the energy, time, matter" has always existed. Just in different states. One famous hypothesis is the Big Bounce. That the Universe is cyclical alternating between periods of expansion and contraction. A Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, repeat ad infinitum.
Why not Zeus? Because he is unnecessary for the explanation of lightning. This was in reply to your example of something appear to you without cause, you would call the Ghostbusters. The ancient people saw a phenomenon they didn't understand like lightning and they came up with all sorts of supernatural explanations, one of them being a god of thunder causing them. Sure, you might call the Ghostbusters if saw something you didn't understand, but the fact that you don't understand, doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. Hell it might be an explanation that eludes the entire human race but even if that's the case, it doesn't mean it's something not bound by the laws of the nature. I agree. Most atheists believe that the universe most likely always existed in some form. Because of the way the current form of the universe operates, we have no way to verify what the cause could be. We can only speculate. I believe it is simply beyond our capability to comprehend, because we are only familiar with a reality where everything begins to exist. Though there is nothing about the big bang model that actually says that material had a beginning. The big bang is referring to the event that caused the expansion of already existing material that was in an infinitely dense state.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 24, 2022 23:25:51 GMT
If the argument doesn't lead to something else other than nature, what was all discussion about something popping into existence and lines of box cars?
I'm NOT taking God off the table, God is definitely 'on the table.' I just have no reason to think God solves that 'endless line of boxcars' problem in that he would face the same problem. You can imagine him solving the 'endless line of boxcars' problem in another world...our natural world, but he has his own line of boxcars that is 'continuously moving.' Where is the beginning of his 'line of boxcars?' God has motion or can create motion...from whence did this capability come or has he someone just 'always' had the ability while not using it? What was God's first thought? If God exists timelessly then all his thoughts happen at once including the 'thought' to create the universe in which case the universe has always existed...that is it existed immediately when God thought it and since there can have been no time in which God did NOT think to create, the universe was immediately created. That right there should put an end to the 'God solves the endless/infinite regression' problem or at least open the door to imagine that the natural world could also exist timelessly and still 'produce' moving universes.
You like to describe all the problems the natural world all the while not really knowing all that the natural world entails and using dilemma's like 'infinite regress' you do not seem to understand because of the problems they also pose for God.
Don't get personal. The discussion about "something popping into existence and lines of box cars" was about the 'pop theory' and uncaused causes, respectively. These are things that are impossible in nature, which is what our very existence would be if there were no first cause: impossible. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in god/s, and/or what I think it may or may not be other than eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, and uncaused. Maybe I misunderstood the questions. Good talk. I apologize for getting personal.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 24, 2022 23:36:00 GMT
It depends on how a person defines proof. All we have is evidence and degrees of confidence in the evidence. The only certainty we can have is that we exist. There is no way anyone can prove that we aren't living in a simulation for example. The upshot seems to be that evidence is something people use/think about to try to convince someone or themselves of something and it becomes proof if it works. So whether evidence amounts to proof...seems to be up to the person trying to be convinced. I can, for example, seek and use evidence on myself to 'prove' something to my own satisfaction. Sometimes I am convinced of some things by not very much evidence at all...particularly if it's a rather mundane claim. So when someone is trying to convince someone else, they have to remember that what appears to be valid evidence to one's self might be totally inadequate to another person.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 24, 2022 23:51:57 GMT
It depends on how a person defines proof. All we have is evidence and degrees of confidence in the evidence. The only certainty we can have is that we exist. There is no way anyone can prove that we aren't living in a simulation for example. The upshot seems to be that evidence is something people use/think about to try to convince someone or themselves of something and it becomes proof if it works. So whether evidence amounts to proof...seems to be up to the person trying to be convinced. I can, for example, seek and use evidence on myself to 'prove' something to my own satisfaction. Sometimes I am convinced of some things by not very much evidence at all...particularly if it's a rather mundane claim. So when someone is trying to convince someone else, they have to remember that what appears to be valid evidence to one's self might be totally inadequate to another person. I don't consider proof to be subjective. For example, something like that medicine works or not, there is proof for that. The person objecting to certain proofs is just the ignorance of the person. There are obviously certain things that can be proven, such as if you cut someone they will bleed. That isn't up for interpretation and if someone doesn't believe this then we would classify them as delusional. So I admit I jumped the gun on saying there are no proofs. I meant that there can be no certainty about many things. For example, I am convinced that we went to the moon, but I don't have absolute certainty of that. NASA would, be I don't have access to that level of proof. The Google definition of proof is "an argument or evidence that points to the truth of a statement." There are many people that are convinced of things for bad reasons. They might think they have proof, but they are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 0:13:08 GMT
If a case is going to be made there is something rather than nothing because something can come from nothing, it's probably best not to also say that nothing is something because nothing doesn't exist. Supernatural is defined as "not subject to explanation according to natural laws." Anything that can defy any natural law would be considered supernatural by definition. Isn't there a natural law that prevents uncaused effects? If so, either those particles are supernatural or the law needs to be revised ASAP. A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing. You say we know better, but do we really? If anything is possible, why not Zeus? When you open a box and the box happens it's empty we usually say there is nothing in there. But in reality, we know that there the empty box still contains air, possibly light and gravity is still functioning inside. The way I understand it, when Krauss says nothing he usually describing a vacuum. We have no indication that virtual particles apparently popping in and out of existence violates the "natural law". More likely, we don't have a full understanding of the Universe. This is especially true when dealing with stuff on the subatomic level where classical physics don't work the same way as they work on a macro scale. "A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing." A cause is necessary for the current state of the Universe. For all we know, the Universe as in "all the energy, time, matter" has always existed. Just in different states. One famous hypothesis is the Big Bounce. That the Universe is cyclical alternating between periods of expansion and contraction. A Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, repeat ad infinitum. Why not Zeus? Because he is unnecessary for the explanation of lightning. This was in reply to your example of something appear to you without cause, you would call the Ghostbusters. The ancient people saw a phenomenon they didn't understand like lightning and they came up with all sorts of supernatural explanations, one of them being a god of thunder causing them. Sure, you might call the Ghostbusters if saw something you didn't understand, but the fact that you don't understand, doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. Hell it might be an explanation that eludes the entire human race but even if that's the case, it doesn't mean it's something not bound by the laws of the nature. The "Big Bounce" would require an external agent. Every worldview ultimately includes some kind of prime mover, an ultimate reality upon which everything else depends. For Lawrence Krauss, the "first cause" is nothing (which is really something.) Thanks for the underscore.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2022 0:15:10 GMT
It depends on how a person defines proof. All we have is evidence and degrees of confidence in the evidence. The only certainty we can have is that we exist. There is no way anyone can prove that we aren't living in a simulation for example. The upshot seems to be that evidence is something people use/think about to try to convince someone or themselves of something and it becomes proof if it works. So whether evidence amounts to proof...seems to be up to the person trying to be convinced. I can, for example, seek and use evidence on myself to 'prove' something to my own satisfaction. Sometimes I am convinced of some things by not very much evidence at all...particularly if it's a rather mundane claim. So when someone is trying to convince someone else, they have to remember that what appears to be valid evidence to one's self might be totally inadequate to another person. I actually have a chart for the degrees to which I can be confident about beliefs I hold and the evidence that supports the specific beliefs. At the very top would be the 100% certain are, which is the starting point to which all the rest of my beliefs come from. The certainty that I exist. 99% would be if I cut myself I will bleed. The evidence for this is that everytime I have cut myself I have bled. 98% would be death. I believe I will die and I think there is significant evidence supporting the fact that I will eventually die. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2022 0:17:41 GMT
When you open a box and the box happens it's empty we usually say there is nothing in there. But in reality, we know that there the empty box still contains air, possibly light and gravity is still functioning inside. The way I understand it, when Krauss says nothing he usually describing a vacuum. We have no indication that virtual particles apparently popping in and out of existence violates the "natural law". More likely, we don't have a full understanding of the Universe. This is especially true when dealing with stuff on the subatomic level where classical physics don't work the same way as they work on a macro scale. "A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing." A cause is necessary for the current state of the Universe. For all we know, the Universe as in "all the energy, time, matter" has always existed. Just in different states. One famous hypothesis is the Big Bounce. That the Universe is cyclical alternating between periods of expansion and contraction. A Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, repeat ad infinitum. Why not Zeus? Because he is unnecessary for the explanation of lightning. This was in reply to your example of something appear to you without cause, you would call the Ghostbusters. The ancient people saw a phenomenon they didn't understand like lightning and they came up with all sorts of supernatural explanations, one of them being a god of thunder causing them. Sure, you might call the Ghostbusters if saw something you didn't understand, but the fact that you don't understand, doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. Hell it might be an explanation that eludes the entire human race but even if that's the case, it doesn't mean it's something not bound by the laws of the nature. The "Big Bounce" would require an external agent. Every worldview ultimately includes some kind of prime mover, an ultimate reality upon which everything else depends. For Lawrence Krauss, the "first cause" is nothing (which is really something.) Thanks for the underscore. An agent is by definition a thinking being. If the source for everything isn't conscious then it isn't an agent. Sure, there is slight room for someone to consider a material source an "agent" but I think using that term for something non-conscious is just going to confuse people. This is often a word game that theists play.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 0:19:17 GMT
Enjoy yourselves. I'll help get you back on track to your proof of assertions. Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. Oh yeah, that reminds me... Do you have some or not?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 0:23:36 GMT
Most atheists believe that the universe most likely always existed in some form. Because of the way the current form of the universe operates, we have no way to verify what the cause could be. We can only speculate. I believe it is simply beyond our capability to comprehend, because we are only familiar with a reality where everything begins to exist. Though there is nothing about the big bang model that actually says that material had a beginning. The big bang is referring to the event that caused the expansion of already existing material that was in an infinitely dense state. Remind me again why atheists "lack belief" in God?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2022 0:25:27 GMT
Most atheists believe that the universe most likely always existed in some form. Because of the way the current form of the universe operates, we have no way to verify what the cause could be. We can only speculate. I believe it is simply beyond our capability to comprehend, because we are only familiar with a reality where everything begins to exist. Though there is nothing about the big bang model that actually says that material had a beginning. The big bang is referring to the event that caused the expansion of already existing material that was in an infinitely dense state. Remind me again why atheists "lack belief" in God? No convincing evidence to warrant belief. An atheist who asserts that they know for certain a God doesn't exist will have a different answer and that type of atheist won't be able to achieve their burden of proof. In theory I could be the eternal being that caused everything else and just not be aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 0:28:11 GMT
The "Big Bounce" would require an external agent. Every worldview ultimately includes some kind of prime mover, an ultimate reality upon which everything else depends. For Lawrence Krauss, the "first cause" is nothing (which is really something.) Thanks for the underscore. An agent is by definition a thinking being. If the source for everything isn't conscious then it isn't an agent. Sure, there is slight room for someone to consider a material source an "agent" but I think using that term for something non-conscious is just going to confuse people. This is often a word game that theists play. agent (n): 1. An active and efficient cause; capable of producing a certain effect The word game is all yours, but I'll play along by rephrasing the statement: The "Big Bounce" would require an external cause. Unless, of course, you're prepared to assert that something can revive itself after it dies without being considered supernatural by definition.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 0:31:07 GMT
Remind me again why atheists "lack belief" in God? No convincing evidence to warrant belief. An atheist who asserts that they know for certain a God doesn't exist will have a different answer and that type of atheist won't be able to achieve their burden of proof. In theory I could be the eternal being that caused everything else and just not be aware of it. What is the convincing evidence to warrant belief that the universe most likely always existed in some form? You called it speculation a moment ago, but now it's convincing evidence? How about the theory that you're the First Cause? Surely you have convincing evidence of that to dispute all evidence to the contrary...
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 25, 2022 2:53:12 GMT
What is the convincing evidence to warrant belief that the universe most likely always existed in some form? You called it speculation a moment ago, but now it's convincing evidence? How about the theory that you're the First Cause? Surely you have convincing evidence of that to dispute all evidence to the contrary... Again, shifting the burden of proof! He never said he held that position. He never said he had evidence for either of those things. He said “in theory”. Is it even possible for you to NOT strawman your interlocutor? He’s not making truth claims; you are! You need evidence; he doesn’t. 😉
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2022 3:31:51 GMT
What is the convincing evidence to warrant belief that the universe most likely always existed in some form? You called it speculation a moment ago, but now it's convincing evidence? How about the theory that you're the First Cause? Surely you have convincing evidence of that to dispute all evidence to the contrary... Again, shifting the burden of proof! He never said he held that position. He never said he had evidence for either of those things. He said “in theory”. Is it even possible for you to NOT strawman your interlocutor? He’s not making truth claims; you are! You need evidence; he doesn’t. 😉 You miss the point. An atheist lacks belief in God because there's no convincing evidence to warrant belief, but an atheist doesn't appear to have any issues with believing he is uncaused despite there being no convincing evidence to warrant that belief and plenty of evidence to the contrary. In my first post to this thread, I said, "One can intuitively acknowledge an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends without calling it God." The next six pages are filled with attempts to refute that with examples of eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused beings upon which all other existence ultimately depends without calling it God. You provided the very evidence you deny.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 25, 2022 13:15:35 GMT
You miss the point. An atheist lacks belief in God because there's no convincing evidence to warrant belief, Correct. Why do keep changing your tenses from positive to negative and vice versa? Why don’t you stay consistent so as not to muddy the waters? “Uncaused” is a negative terminology. Yet you’re comparing it to belief in God (a positive assertion). The correct way to state this (if you want to be consistent) is that an atheist may lack a belief that he is caused! And there is nothing contradictory about that if that atheist does not recognize any evidence for causation. And of course this is another strawman argument because I’m not aware of any atheist expressing this view (that he is uncaused). I was “caused” by my parents having sex. So it’s kind of a silly baseless assertion. The thing of which I am doubtful is your assertion that EVERYTHING has a cause, or that there was a FIRST CAUSE. Those are statements that are not supported by evidence. I know what you said. I don’t see how this is relevant to any argument any atheist here is making. I don’t care what you “call it”, I only care whether it’s TRUE. Labels are irrelevant! Nobody attempted to refute that. I just dismissed it as non-relevant. Saying that we CAN intuitively acknowledge an assertion doesn’t imply that we SHOULD. And you didn’t make an argument for why we should, you just made a bunch of assertions and then abandoned your argument immediately when faced with difficult questions that you couldn’t answer. You didn’t have a case before, and you still don’t. You’re just going right back to another straw man argument.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 25, 2022 16:12:18 GMT
The upshot seems to be that evidence is something people use/think about to try to convince someone or themselves of something and it becomes proof if it works. So whether evidence amounts to proof...seems to be up to the person trying to be convinced. I can, for example, seek and use evidence on myself to 'prove' something to my own satisfaction. Sometimes I am convinced of some things by not very much evidence at all...particularly if it's a rather mundane claim. So when someone is trying to convince someone else, they have to remember that what appears to be valid evidence to one's self might be totally inadequate to another person. I don't consider proof to be subjective. For example, something like that medicine works or not, there is proof for that. The person objecting to certain proofs is just the ignorance of the person. There are obviously certain things that can be proven, such as if you cut someone they will bleed. That isn't up for interpretation and if someone doesn't believe this then we would classify them as delusional. So I admit I jumped the gun on saying there are no proofs. I meant that there can be no certainty about many things. For example, I am convinced that we went to the moon, but I don't have absolute certainty of that. NASA would, be I don't have access to that level of proof. The Google definition of proof is "an argument or evidence that points to the truth of a statement." There are many people that are convinced of things for bad reasons. They might think they have proof, but they are mistaken. I would assume most folks do not think of proof as subjective, IN THAT most assume their own way of thinking is the right way and they believe themselves to be objectively considering the evidence. They likely believe that if the evidence was not sufficient to form a conclusion that they would reserve judgment. Why would anyone think otherwise, generally? I doubt anyone intentionally goes out of their way to misunderstand things in an effort to hold to one belief over another. Perhaps some do and I'm sure it may seem that way from another's POV. It's just that unless the issue is obvious...like what can be ascertained by immediate simple observation...eg your example of when someone cut's them self, they bleed or if I claim there is a cat in a room and someone else, based on close inspection (looking/touching) perceives what he considers to be a cat standing there will consider the point proven, there will often be different conclusions with the same set of 'evidence.' So for more obscure things for which lines of reasoning coupled with varied observations/data must be used to reach a likely conclusion...like so many of the more important and abstract scientific findings and what many consider to be supernatural beliefs, there will be a wide range of conclusions.
But I am NOT sure as many people understand how much of their worldview is 'filled in' assumptions/assertions...things, for all intents and purposes, taken on faith either out of necessity or because there seems little point to believe otherwise. That applies to someone accepting, for example, that we're not living in a matrix kind of existence or when refuting those who declare no one can prove that they aren't the 'only' person existing...ie some sort of solipsism. Most just resolve the issue by saying 'what is the point of even wondering those things?' At least I do.
Take me, for example. I don't think God or anything supernatural exists. But to maintain that world view, I have to overlook some, what seem to me (and others) to be, intuitive dilemmas. I do so by making assumptions about the natural world that cannot (yet) be corroborated by observation/evidence. And I do so because...I don't see the point of believing otherwise. It seems to me none of the dilemmas I envision are answered/explained by the existence of the supernatural (God) except by inventing features and qualities much as I do with the natural world. And I DO believe the natural world actually exists so at least I'm not positing a totally different kind of existence for which features must also be invented including its own explanation. Doing so seems to multiply the unknowns exponentially.
That is what I maintain theists do....they perceive intuitively or through argument some conundrum/inconsistency within what they consider to be the natural world, they think they know all (or enough) about the natural world to assure themselves the natural world cannot explain said conundrum and then they posit some sort of different/other existence and imagine it possesses all sorts of attributes and features that somehow solve those conundrums. I think many actually do understand they are doing that (ie making stuff up) and so own to taking them on faith, but it seems just as many don't really realize how much of their view of the supernatural and God is improvised. I interacted with someone the other day on another forum who claimed because God was simple, no explanation for his existence was needed and God didn't need to have been created. Despite that line of reasoning not being sound even if true, I suggested that the idea that God was simple was a faith based assertion. They responded emphatically that NO it was not a faith based assertion but was based on the Doctrine (capital D) of Divine Simplicity, as if that somehow changed the fact that simplicity was an imagined attribute/feature of God because someone called it a Doctrine. I had to show him that even many noted apologists and theologians reject the idea that God is 'simple' and some even think it incoherent. link
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 25, 2022 16:51:28 GMT
I don't consider proof to be subjective. For example, something like that medicine works or not, there is proof for that. The person objecting to certain proofs is just the ignorance of the person. There are obviously certain things that can be proven, such as if you cut someone they will bleed. That isn't up for interpretation and if someone doesn't believe this then we would classify them as delusional. So I admit I jumped the gun on saying there are no proofs. I meant that there can be no certainty about many things. For example, I am convinced that we went to the moon, but I don't have absolute certainty of that. NASA would, be I don't have access to that level of proof. The Google definition of proof is "an argument or evidence that points to the truth of a statement." There are many people that are convinced of things for bad reasons. They might think they have proof, but they are mistaken. I would assume most folks do not think of proof as subjective, IN THAT most assume their own way of thinking is the right way and they believe themselves to be objectively considering the evidence. They likely believe that if the evidence was not sufficient to form a conclusion that they would reserve judgment. Why would anyone think otherwise, generally? I doubt anyone intentionally goes out of their way to misunderstand things in an effort to hold to one belief over another. Perhaps some do and I'm sure it may seem that way from another's POV. It's just that unless the issue is obvious...like what can be ascertained by immediate simple observation...eg your example of when someone cut's them self, they bleed or if I claim there is a cat in a room and someone else, based on close inspection (looking/touching) perceives what he considers to be a cat standing there will consider the point proven, there will often be different conclusions with the same set of 'evidence.' So for more obscure things for which lines of reasoning coupled with varied observations/data must be used to reach a likely conclusion...like so many of the more important and abstract scientific findings and what many consider to be supernatural beliefs, there will be a wide range of conclusions.
But I am NOT sure as many people understand how much of their worldview is 'filled in' assumptions/assertions...things, for all intents and purposes, taken on faith either out of necessity or because there seems little point to believe otherwise. That applies to someone accepting, for example, that we're not living in a matrix kind of existence or when refuting those who declare no one can prove that they aren't the 'only' person existing...ie some sort of solipsism. Most just resolve the issue by saying 'what is the point of even wondering those things?' At least I do.
Take me, for example. I don't think God or anything supernatural exists. But to maintain that world view, I have to overlook some, what seem to me (and others) to be, intuitive dilemmas. I do so by making assumptions about the natural world that cannot (yet) be corroborated by observation/evidence. And I do so because...I don't see the point of believing otherwise. It seems to me none of the dilemmas I envision are answered/explained by the existence of the supernatural (God) except by inventing features and qualities much as I do with the natural world. And I DO believe the natural world actually exists so at least I'm not positing a totally different kind of existence for which features must also be invented including its own explanation. Doing so seems to multiply the unknowns exponentially.
That is what I maintain theists do....they perceive intuitively or through argument some conundrum/inconsistency within what they consider to be the natural world, they think they know all (or enough) about the natural world to assure themselves the natural world cannot explain said conundrum and then they posit some sort of different/other existence and imagine it possesses all sorts of attributes and features that somehow solve those conundrums. I think many actually do understand they are doing that (ie making stuff up) and so own to taking them on faith, but it seems just as many don't really realize how much of their view of the supernatural and God is improvised. I interacted with someone the other day on another forum who claimed because God was simple, no explanation for his existence was needed and God didn't need to have been created. Despite that line of reasoning not being sound even if true, I suggested that the idea that God was simple was a faith based assertion. They responded emphatically that NO it was not a faith based assertion but was based on the Doctrine (capital D) of Divine Simplicity, as if that somehow changed the fact that simplicity was an imagined attribute/feature of God because someone called it a Doctrine. I had to show him that even many noted apologists and theologians reject the idea that God is 'simple' and some even think it incoherent. link I can tell you are smarter than me, so some of what you are saying I don't quite understand. I get the gist of what you are saying, but not entirely. The paragraph about God for example, I don't see the problem that you are trying to point out. I don't believe anything supernatural exists only because the evidence hasn't reached a level of believability and the evidence for there being only the natural world is very strong. I am not saying there is no supernatural, just that I am not convinced there is. I don't see how this includes me ignoring intuitive dilemmas. The supernatural and God don't solve those dilemmas either as far as I can tell. There is no proof involved in that though. I am not asserting anything one way of the other. This is why I said I only use proof for things like the effectiveness of medicine and things we can actually observe. I am sure you would agree there is proof that the Earth is a sphere and that the people who don't believe this are not believing this for bad reasons. I guess you can say it is all ultimately subjective, but I think in certain cases you and me would say that those people are flat out wrong. I don't say that when it comes to people who believe God exists, because I do understand why people would come to the conclusion a God exists, especially in a world where we are indoctrinated to believe that a God exists. Most people begin with God exists because this is such a strong element of society and that the belief offers comfort for people. How many people do you think would still hold onto that belief if there was no fear of death involved? Most people don't actually think about it in any deep way and are given bad information by the people they trust. Most aren't led by the evidence, they begin with the conclusion that God exists and then try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. That is backwards. I also began with "God exists" because that is what I was taught, but I could no longer justify a belief in a God. The proof just isn't there. I also don't think there is proof there is no God either though. I think there is proof that specific Gods can't exist based on logical contradictions, but there is no proof that the supernatural doesn't exist or that an indifferent deist God didn't start everything off. I just don't see any reason to believe that those things do exist. They haven't met their burden of proof. This is why most theists will use faith. If you have sufficient evidence to believe a claim, you don't need faith. Most theists don't mean faith in the trust way, they mean "I know there isn't any way to prove God exists, so I rely on faith to justify my belief." I want to talk more btw.
|
|