Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
How do you know there are no other options? Why could the universe in some form or other not have always existed? Or simply popped into existence? Or not really exist except inside your mind? None of these hypothesis can be disprove. That is the problem with proving a negative. It is also impossible to disprove the idea that some creator is responsible but that does beg the question (in the cases as this one in which the claim is that existence necessitates a creator) where did this creator come from? Does its existence not necessitate a creator creator?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Also can you definitively prove that the universe did not create itself (whatever that process would entail)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
That is a false dichotomy. Created itself or created by some god(s) are not the only possible scenarios.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Goldtop did not make the claim that the universe created itself, he merely rejects your claim that it must have been created. You actually have the burden of proof in this situation although if goldtop goes on to make a claim he would then have his own burden of proof. You seem to have missed the point of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not telling you what you mean you told me you meant reality as it is so if reality is an uncaring void then that is what you mean. It may be more than that but this is a poor hypothesis as we cannot test it.
Make sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Have I arrived at the burgomaster's yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That someone does not accept your claims about god/reality does not mean they do not accept reality. If someone refuses to call reality god/reality it does not mean they do not accept that reality is for lack of a better word real. It further does not mean that they refuse to understand that reality may be an illusion. Tell me how does referring to the same concept you mean without using the moniker of God make one superstitious? A rose by any other name after all. I'm not sure why calling reality god (capitalised or not) is even important to you. The definition "whatever really exists" does not tell us anything about what really exists and if the evidence points to a meaningless and uncaring void being most of the ultimate reality then we have no reason to think that it is more than a meaningless uncaring void with some stuff peppered through it. Let me say that again. I have no reason to believe that reality as I perceive it is real (and if it isn't then I cannot know anything aboit reality whatever full stop) but if it is then God would appear to be, based on available evidence, a meaningless uncaring void with some stuff peppered through it. That is based on your definition.
Also and just to be clear my intention has never been to mock you.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I was not seeking a teacher I was seeking an interlocutor. This is a debate site not a discipleship site. I am here to present my arguments and to be exposed to the arguments of others.
My default position is skepticism because I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible and I already accept perceived reality which is beyond my personal epistemology. That is already one assumption too many. Any assumptions that do not follow directly from that premise require further assumptions and assuming things is not a good pathway to truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm afraid as I perceive it is all I am capable of accepting. You are correct that people accept different standards of evidence but you must admit that there is a difference between the evidence we have for the existence of gravity and the "evidence" associated with claims of the supernatural.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then why should I accept your claims about god/reality over anyone else's? What makes you an authority on the unknowable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I reject any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. I accept reality as we perceive it as a convenience and that some reality exists as an extension of I think therefore I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you retract any claim beyond your tautalogical definition?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't feel like dredging through all the threads you have posted on but you have claimed that god/reality created the universe and that god/reality is good and just and that god/reality is somehow connect to christianity. Please do not be dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Provided that is the entirety of the definition I can accept it but that means you cannot claim that reality is good or evil or concious or creative or loving or just or any other adjectives whatever without demonstrating it as true. Can you meet this criteria?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shed12
There would be no way to distinguish between a truly convincing and persistent illusion and reality.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is a little difficult to pin down exactly what you mean. Every time thus far that you have presented me with a definition that I feel I can agree to without violating my epistemology you promptlybadd something to said definition that is not supported by my observations or by scientific inquiry. If god is reality and reality is god then fine but any claim of being eternal or of creating is not provable by anything you have thus fat offered. I also have yet to hear any logical reason to connect christianity the bible or indeed any him an religious beliefs to this proposed reality. Can you honestly say that you are not claiming any of those unsubstantiated propositions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I do not know. But not knowing does not give us licence to make things up. In that case the intelectualy honest answer is I don't know not god is reality. I told you the definition I can accept and the addition that I cannot accept u til proven and you have declined both to retract your additional claims and to understand the difference between the definition what is really true and actually exists and unsubstantiated claims about that reality.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I do not object to the bible itself but I reject any claim that the bible is historically accurate or a reflection of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm afraid that I must reject your definition as unclear in that case. Reality is reality and god(s) are ficticious. If you wish to discuss this further we can but if I cannot be certain that you are not engaged in an equivocation fallacy then I don't see how we can have an intellectual conversation on the subject.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You called this ultimate reality a creator not me. You are the one who is trying to the the bible to the ultimate truth not me. If you cannot plainly say that you do not claim either of these things then I can agree to your original stripped down definition of whatever reality is, but what it is may not be eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can accept the definition reality AND NOTHING MORE if you wish to add any other attributes such as being a creator or being holy then I reject your definition until such time that these attributes can be demonstrated.
So Mopac it is now up to you. Is god (capitalised or not) just whatever reality there is even if that means it doesn't fit with christian doctrine or is there more to it (in which case you have been engaged in an equivocation fallacy this entire time)?
Created:
-->
@Shed12
Are humans meaningful?
Only to other humans and the animals we share our environment with. If there is any further meaning it has not been demonstrated to me.
Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?
That depends on whether or not the physical universe exists as we perceive it. Provided the physical universe is real then asteroids exist whether there is any observer or not. Opinions differ in That they do not exist unless there is someone to have them.
I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer.
It is true that a definition should be dependent on reality not the other way around but we must still agree on what to call things or we may not be talking about the same things. When we finally realize that we are not having the same conversation we would have to stop and define terms anyway. It is better in my opinion to have the discussion before we begin.
(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil.
My whole point is that there may not be any objective good or evil. My personal preferred standard for what is moral is human wellbeing followed closely by wellbeing in general. If something promotes harm it is generally speaking in my opinion immoral and if it promotes wellbeing then generally speaking in my opinion it is moral. If you do not agree with this standard and do not have one to offer we are probably at the end of this conversation but in either case wellbeing is only my subjective personal standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
I am not claiming anything as I do notknow how the universe first came to be. However I'm not sure how you have determined that the universe is not eternal or why those would created or eternal would be the only two options.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I do not deny that some reality exists. If you wish to call this reality god (capitalised or not) that's fine but if you add things to your definition I am under no obligation to accept this new definition and not doing so does not mean that I necessarily reject the original definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am making no fallacy.
Except when you offer one definition for something and then add attributes to this definition during a discussion and then claim that rejecting these newly introduced attributed is the same as rejecting the initial definition. That is an equivocation fallacy by definition and I know how big you are on definitions.
I cannot answer your questions
Most questions seem not to have an answer.
you already think you know
Actually I don't know, I just don't believe that you know either.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then don't believe the truth,
This is what I mean by an equivocation fallacy. You suggest a one definition for a word (God is the ultimate reality) and then try to cha.ge that definition later in your argument (God is a creator and the ultimate moral authority) if being a creator and a moral authority is a part of your definition of some god(s) then the ultimate reality is not a complete definition. A revised definition that includes additional attributes may need to be demonstrated where as a tautalogical one can be excepted definitionally even if it has little meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Why would the universe need to be created at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Proving a negative is to prove that something doesn't exist. It is possible to offer evidence of existence but if something does not exist there can never be any proof. Claiming that something exists therefore requires a burden of proof while saying there is no evidence for or against the same thing does not. I'm sorry I thought you knew what I meant by prove a negative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because I know my epistemological limits I understand that I don't know.Because I know The Truth, I know that I am wrong
If I completely knew God, I would be able to accurately tell you how many germs live under your finger nail.
Here you are attempting again to commit an equivocation fallacy. That germs live under my fingernail regardless of their number is no reason to presume that reality is eternal or holy (whatever holy means to you) or has or is capable of creating anything. That things exist and that too many things exist to properly quantify them all in no eaybsupports your other claims in these regards.
know what it is my personal relationship is with.
How can one have a personal relationship with something which is unknowable and appears to be totally unresponsive? One could have a spatial relationship or a one sided relationship I suppose but that doesn't seem personal to me.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The point is that God exists
If you define god (capitalized or not) as reality (whatever that turns out to be) then yes sure it exists. If reality is not eternal, doesn't create and or is not holy then the reality you are describing does not exist. Reality exists, there is no observable evidence to suggest that it is eternal, holy, or creative (unless you care to present any).
You are right about one thing. No amount of explaining your position will convince me that anyone is justified in believing things in the absence of evidence.
You capitalize words out of respect for something that likely does not respond observably to your linguistic convention and offer it love and worship we cannot know if it appreciates or even notices, or indeed possess the conciousness necessary to notice or be aware of anything. You do not worship actual reality Mopac because we as humans are not likely to be able to know with certainty what that is. You are worshiping the concept of reality that exists inside your mind, just as when I accept reality I am not accepting actual reality I am only capable of accepting the concept of reality that exists inside my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your personal ability to believe contradictory proposition without any perceived cognitive dissonance is not evidence for or against anything unless it is evidence that you are uninterested in the truth value of your beliefs (which may or may not be the case).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not tied that reality to any particular scripture. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be then You still have not demonstrated that any part of reality had or needs a creator. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not defined the word holy or shown that it applies to reality in any sensible way. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not demonstrated to me that anything is or can be eternal.
You say that I do not understand but I must say that you are not doing the best job of explaining your position. You say that I need not concern myself with your personal testimony (and I don't necessarily disagree as that is anecdotal evidence) but you keep bringing it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
didn't you state clearly that "one cannot prove a negative".
That is precisely my point. One cannot prove a negative one can however engage in a black swan fallacy.
Again, you know there isn't any coming in the respect of there being any god as a believer understands what a god to be
I do not know. I merely have reasonable expectations based on past experience.
I wouldn't bother even pitching such an hypothesis
Except that you just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can say I don't know it while claiming to know it.
This is directly contradictory. Contradictory statements are generally nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Demonstrate? Don’t you mean prove? Orare those words interchangeable to you?
I'm not sure. Perhaps I am not being precise but if there is no sufficient evidence then I'm not sure how we could demonstrate a proposition adequately.
there is nothing and will never be anythingto convince you of the existence of gods?
I don't expect that there is but one never knows. Conclusive physical evidence would be a good place to start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am not asking for proof so much as trying to understand why someone would accept something for which they have no proof. Also while I do not expect any proof based on my past experience with theists I do not and cannot know that I will never receive such proof.
On a separate note I find that you are quite reasonable in your assessment of the evidence you are capable of supplying and in your expectations for convincing skeptics of your position based on the available evidence so this thread is not really directed at you though you are always welcome on any of my threads.
Created:
Posted in:
@rational madman
My ability to consider hypotheses or to be imaginative is in no way impaired by my refusal to accept unsubstantiated claims. I can consider unsubstantiated ideas all day but at the end of the day I am under no obligation to accept these ideas and indeed I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence. Conversely if you had sufficient evidence of your claims I would have no choice but to accept them.
Speaking of things we are under no obligation to do you are under no obligation to respond to me or even read my posts regardless of the presence of your handle in said post.
Created:
Posted in:
@rational madman
An explanation is insufficient as evidence. One cannot simply substitute an explanation for a citation. Or in other words saying something does not make it true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Just because I reject theistic claims doesn't mean that I do not find them endlessly fascinating.
That being said this thread is in direct response to two ideas. One is the idea that rejecting a claim is equivalent to making the opposite claim and therefore requires a burden of proof. The other is that atheists are really believers who have just lost their way. That they "believe more than they think they do" or that they are "just angry at god" or "just want to sin" and so consciously reject something that they really believe deep down.
To be clear it is impossible to prove a negative and my claim is not that there is no god(s) but only that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of any god(s) that has been presented to me. Since I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence I do not believe in any god(s). I do not "believe deep down" or "believe more than I realize" I am not angry with any god(s) or indeed with any being or concept I consider to be fictitious and I do not wish to be immoral.
I just reject any claim which has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
@rational madman
You say it so it must be true.
Don't you expect people to believe in you hypotheses simply because they are your hypotheses?
If not then I really don't understand why you would expect me to accept your claims without any citation.
Created:
Posted in:
Until you can demonstrate a claim I have no reason to accept it. Rejecting your claim is not a claim in and of itself it is merely the default position in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Can you think of any reasonable argument for accepting a proposition as true without sufficient evidence?
Likewise can you demonstrate any theistic or supernatural claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on knowing, neither can it be totally known.
If this is true then this.
Knowing what God is.
Is an impossiblity and any claim that is contingent upon such knowledge can be dismissed out of hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What about existing necessitates a creator?You don't think it was created, but you accept it exists.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you wish to define god (capitalised or not) as reality regardless of what that reality turns out to be then that is one thing. When you start making claims such as that the "prophecy" contained in this or that scripture is proof of something or that reality is "holy" (whatever that means) then you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy.
An equivocation fallacy is when you change the given definition of a term in the middle of the debate.
Even if you want to call reality god (capitalised or not) there is no reason to believe that scripture reflects reality or that reality is holy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I go looking for Snerp with the understanding that he is likely at the burgomaster's mansion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Yeah let's go get Snerp and Roberts. No galavanting off on a wolf hunt today.
Created: