FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Star Size Comparison 2

Star Size Comparison 2

(6:50) Want your mind blown? An amazing visualisation comparing the sizes of planets and stars in our universe. morn1415 YT channel

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (470 days ago)

James Cohen has a real problem

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment

James Cohen has a real problem

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (473 days ago)

Where's god?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Where's god?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (473 days ago)

Non spatial and omnipresent

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

Non spatial and omnipresent

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Judgment (472 days ago)

Suck what?

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

Suck what?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestthecocksucker (472 days ago)

Like your fuking head, vacuous and empty.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

Like your fuking head, vacuous and empty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (473 days ago)

I was hoping for a straight forward answer rather than poetry.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

I was hoping for a straight forward answer rather than poetry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (473 days ago)

You need to read better poetry.

If you're expecting a straight forward answer to describe a deity, you're barking up the wrong tree.

But you're not expecting that. You're just wanting to air your very interesting and daring opinion again. Go for it.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

You need to read better poetry.

If you're expecting a straight forward answer to describe a deity, you're barking up the wrong tree.

But you're not expecting that. You're just wanting to air your very interesting and daring opinion again. Go for it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (473 days ago)

The straight forward answer is: god is in our head. Everywhere else it's poetry.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

The straight forward answer is: god is in our head. Everywhere else it's poetry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (473 days ago)

OK so when you say 'straight forward' you seem to mean 'in-keeping with my current inherited belief set'. Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure there's an atheist here to say "god is NOwhere Walter, NOwhere at all!" and then you could congratulate each other.

And 'god is in our head' is less poetic than 'god is non-spatial'? Really?

Omniprescent like energy; non-spatial like consciousness. Actually, seriously, don't worry about it. It's like debating with a scientologist.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

OK so when you say 'straight forward' you seem to mean 'in-keeping with my current inherited belief set'. Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure there's an atheist here to say "god is NOwhere Walter, NOwhere at all!" and then you could congratulate each other.

And 'god is in our head' is less poetic than 'god is non-spatial'? Really?

Omniprescent like energy; non-spatial like consciousness. Actually, seriously, don't worry about it. It's like debating with a scientologist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Judgment (472 days ago)

You really get off on arguing dont you. You think everyone should be just like you. You are a piece of garbage.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

You really get off on arguing dont you. You think everyone should be just like you. You are a piece of garbage.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

Good grief, Jechill. You really shouldn't be allowed on the internet when you've been drinking. In fact, I'm not sure you should drink at all.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Good grief, Jechill. You really shouldn't be allowed on the internet when you've been drinking. In fact, I'm not sure you should drink at all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guestisafaggot (472 days ago)

Straight ? what do you know about being straight?

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Straight ? what do you know about being straight?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (473 days ago)

I believe god does exist, but just in our imagination. After all, there's no sign of god before human existence. And no need for god's involvement in creating the universe.

So surely the straight forward conclusion is: we made this shit up. Or do you have a simpler more elegant interpretation?

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

I believe god does exist, but just in our imagination. After all, there's no sign of god before human existence. And no need for god's involvement in creating the universe.

So surely the straight forward conclusion is: we made this shit up. Or do you have a simpler more elegant interpretation?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (473 days ago)

Yep yep yep, we've been here before Walter haven't we? By now I could write your lines for you and vice versa I'd hope. 'No sign of god' by your interpretation of 'sign' (which is the only correct interpretation); no evidence by your interpretation of evidence (which is the only correct interpretation); yeah yeah; you think there's no god anywhere at all because you haven't seen anything you think is evidence here; and you're not yet aware of any traditionally inexplicable or complex situation within science that could be explained with reference to a deity of some kind... Super. I get all of that, I really do.

Personally, I think more or less any interpretation might be more elegant than 'we made this shit up', but then again I've seen what you call poetry. Obviously, the simplest answer is not always the most accurate, or quantum physics, string theory, etc. etc. would never have got off their feet. But anyway. Anyway, anyway. I'm not inviting you to rehash your opinion again, or to redefine anything. Sorry I took the bait.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Yep yep yep, we've been here before Walter haven't we? By now I could write your lines for you and vice versa I'd hope. 'No sign of god' by your interpretation of 'sign' (which is the only correct interpretation); no evidence by your interpretation of evidence (which is the only correct interpretation); yeah yeah; you think there's no god anywhere at all because you haven't seen anything you think is evidence here; and you're not yet aware of any traditionally inexplicable or complex situation within science that could be explained with reference to a deity of some kind... Super. I get all of that, I really do.

Personally, I think more or less any interpretation might be more elegant than 'we made this shit up', but then again I've seen what you call poetry. Obviously, the simplest answer is not always the most accurate, or quantum physics, string theory, etc. etc. would never have got off their feet. But anyway. Anyway, anyway. I'm not inviting you to rehash your opinion again, or to redefine anything. Sorry I took the bait.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (472 days ago)

Help me out here. When I look around I see of signs of god everywhere. But none that predates human beings. The most obvious interpretation is that humans created god. Tell me why I should not accept that interpretation as the default.

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment

Help me out here. When I look around I see of signs of god everywhere. But none that predates human beings. The most obvious interpretation is that humans created god. Tell me why I should not accept that interpretation as the default.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

So you don't think the planet earth itself, the stars, the moon, the weather, etc. etc. ad nauseum, are interpreted as signs of god by some theists? Anyway, as usual, you're trying to disprove a god who has left signs in front of you. That may be anti-Abrahamic but it's not a refutation of theism.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

So you don't think the planet earth itself, the stars, the moon, the weather, etc. etc. ad nauseum, are interpreted as signs of god by some theists? Anyway, as usual, you're trying to disprove a god who has left signs in front of you. That may be anti-Abrahamic but it's not a refutation of theism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (472 days ago)

Anyone can interpret whatever they like, but since they are human, that interpretation is made within human existence.

If we discover that crocodiles worship god, then since crocodiles existed before humans and have hardly changed, I would take that as a sign of god that predates human existence. But I see no religious crocs.

It still looks like god shows up after humans. And if that's so, obviously god could not have created us or the moon.

I'm trying really hard, tell me what I'm missing.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Anyone can interpret whatever they like, but since they are human, that interpretation is made within human existence.

If we discover that crocodiles worship god, then since crocodiles existed before humans and have hardly changed, I would take that as a sign of god that predates human existence. But I see no religious crocs.

It still looks like god shows up after humans. And if that's so, obviously god could not have created us or the moon.

I'm trying really hard, tell me what I'm missing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

So you see the worship of a god as a deciding factor on whether or not any god exists? In other words, because no lifeform seems to have worshipped (or even acknowledged) a god before humans were on the scene, a god can't exist in any form? That can't be what you mean - I'm not sure I understand your point. God doesn't exist because crocodiles aren't religious? That's a corker. Please explain it again.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

So you see the worship of a god as a deciding factor on whether or not any god exists? In other words, because no lifeform seems to have worshipped (or even acknowledged) a god before humans were on the scene, a god can't exist in any form? That can't be what you mean - I'm not sure I understand your point. God doesn't exist because crocodiles aren't religious? That's a corker. Please explain it again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (472 days ago)

Don't start getting sloppy on me. It's a short and slippery slope from sarcasm to sloppiness. Religious crocodiles would certainly be an intriguing discovery. If we see worshipping of god by a species that existed before humans, that would prove that god exists outside of human existence, even if it's only in the imagination of the prehuman species.

But it doesn't have to be a lifeform. If we find the theory of everything fossilised into rock older than a few hundred thousand years, then that would be a pretty good sign of something worthy of further investigation.

Or maybe we observe stars or galaxies billions of light years away being manipulated in ways that only a non-spatial-omnipresent-s uper-thingy can do. Maybe we find hints of intelligence in dark energy?

Just give me something. Anything will do. Otherwise why would I even think that god created us when it looks like he came after us.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Don't start getting sloppy on me. It's a short and slippery slope from sarcasm to sloppiness. Religious crocodiles would certainly be an intriguing discovery. If we see worshipping of god by a species that existed before humans, that would prove that god exists outside of human existence, even if it's only in the imagination of the prehuman species.

But it doesn't have to be a lifeform. If we find the theory of everything fossilised into rock older than a few hundred thousand years, then that would be a pretty good sign of something worthy of further investigation.

Or maybe we observe stars or galaxies billions of light years away being manipulated in ways that only a non-spatial-omnipresent-s uper-thingy can do. Maybe we find hints of intelligence in dark energy?

Just give me something. Anything will do. Otherwise why would I even think that god created us when it looks like he came after us.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

Oh here we go; sloppiness. You can't resist can you? So predictable. Maybe that's my politically correct gene? Or perhaps I've read too much. All that wasted time studying?

I'll try very hard not to tread the same old ground, though when you make the same assumptions it's pretty hard to avoid it. Firstly, let's just clarify - something existing 'in imagination' isn't existing in the sense we are discussing, as you and I both know - (it does amuse me that for all your whining about philosophy, you come out with some of the limpest idealism ever commited to paper) - so whether something is worshipped by humans or anything else has no bearing on whether it actually exists. If we found evidence that the concept of a supreme god that pretty much every civilisation has been worshipping is actually the same god, that wouldn't guarantee that such a god exists, and conversely if everyone simultaneously stopped believing in any gods, it wouldn't preclude one from existing. So as you've shown countless times, you're quite well-equipped to argue against the type of god who would leave incontrovertible clues lying around, irrefutable evidence in the fossil record, who might not depend on faith but simple discovery, who shows 'intelligence', perhaps even sits on a cloud and nips down every now and again to perform miracles in front of non-believers. That's not enough, because that's not the god that many / any people believe in.

Of course there's plenty within science that is as yet unexplained or inexplicable, or incredibly complex, or seems to allude to something hugely powerful that we are not aware of. It's just that like most people you will ignore explanations that don't suit your preconceptions. Dip your toes into quantum theory, spooky action at a distance, string theory, and yes dark matter etc. etc. and IF you were so inclined you could find plenty to support theism, and certainly nothing to directly contradict it. Science is full of awe and mystery which is the very currency of religion. And as for your example, ironically enough, yes we absolutely do observe stars and galaxies billions of lights away acting in impossible ways - spinning without sufficient mass, for example. They are definitely being manipulated in some way, but we don't know by what. This is why there are astrophysicists and quantum physicists out there, who despite knowing more about the universe than both of us put together don't see anything that contradicts their faith. Do you know more about their god and their science than they do? Surely, the undeniable fact is that we are all interpreting the same universe, and quite a few people have seen a lot more of it than us, and yet they come to different conclusions.

So you say 'give me something', but we both know nothing will do, any more than anything satisfies a Mormon who claims to want to see evidence refuting their belief set. You have heavily invested in your worldview, which was why when you asked for a 'straight forward' answer, you were merely looking for someone to spoonfeed you your opinion. It's comforting, right? That's not a criticism; it's just an acceptance of who and what you are, and why we should be sceptical of anyone claiming their interpretation is the best or default option.

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

Oh here we go; sloppiness. You can't resist can you? So predictable. Maybe that's my politically correct gene? Or perhaps I've read too much. All that wasted time studying?

I'll try very hard not to tread the same old ground, though when you make the same assumptions it's pretty hard to avoid it. Firstly, let's just clarify - something existing 'in imagination' isn't existing in the sense we are discussing, as you and I both know - (it does amuse me that for all your whining about philosophy, you come out with some of the limpest idealism ever commited to paper) - so whether something is worshipped by humans or anything else has no bearing on whether it actually exists. If we found evidence that the concept of a supreme god that pretty much every civilisation has been worshipping is actually the same god, that wouldn't guarantee that such a god exists, and conversely if everyone simultaneously stopped believing in any gods, it wouldn't preclude one from existing. So as you've shown countless times, you're quite well-equipped to argue against the type of god who would leave incontrovertible clues lying around, irrefutable evidence in the fossil record, who might not depend on faith but simple discovery, who shows 'intelligence', perhaps even sits on a cloud and nips down every now and again to perform miracles in front of non-believers. That's not enough, because that's not the god that many / any people believe in.

Of course there's plenty within science that is as yet unexplained or inexplicable, or incredibly complex, or seems to allude to something hugely powerful that we are not aware of. It's just that like most people you will ignore explanations that don't suit your preconceptions. Dip your toes into quantum theory, spooky action at a distance, string theory, and yes dark matter etc. etc. and IF you were so inclined you could find plenty to support theism, and certainly nothing to directly contradict it. Science is full of awe and mystery which is the very currency of religion. And as for your example, ironically enough, yes we absolutely do observe stars and galaxies billions of lights away acting in impossible ways - spinning without sufficient mass, for example. They are definitely being manipulated in some way, but we don't know by what. This is why there are astrophysicists and quantum physicists out there, who despite knowing more about the universe than both of us put together don't see anything that contradicts their faith. Do you know more about their god and their science than they do? Surely, the undeniable fact is that we are all interpreting the same universe, and quite a few people have seen a lot more of it than us, and yet they come to different conclusions.

So you say 'give me something', but we both know nothing will do, any more than anything satisfies a Mormon who claims to want to see evidence refuting their belief set. You have heavily invested in your worldview, which was why when you asked for a 'straight forward' answer, you were merely looking for someone to spoonfeed you your opinion. It's comforting, right? That's not a criticism; it's just an acceptance of who and what you are, and why we should be sceptical of anyone claiming their interpretation is the best or default option.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (472 days ago)

Thanks for that nice display of wankmanship. Now can we get back to the question at hand. Which came first, god or humans?

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

Thanks for that nice display of wankmanship. Now can we get back to the question at hand. Which came first, god or humans?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

QED. I always make that mistake of treating you like a well-educated, open-minded and reasonable adult - or at least an undergrad - and you always set me straight; what a comprehensive and articulate response to all the points that undermined yours. I've been put in my place.

Don't ask questions if you're not interested in any other answers but your own - just don't worry yourself about it. Focus on what you're having for tea instead.

After-all, it's all metaphysical poetic academic non-pragmatic unscientic mumbo-jumbo bullsh!t right, believed by retards and sand monkeys? If you really care, I'm sure Dawkins will tell you what you want to hear and you can feel all warm and fuzzy and proud, just a like a good believer. You can find the affirmation you so desperately crave. Heck, I think you can even get a t-shirt these days.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

QED. I always make that mistake of treating you like a well-educated, open-minded and reasonable adult - or at least an undergrad - and you always set me straight; what a comprehensive and articulate response to all the points that undermined yours. I've been put in my place.

Don't ask questions if you're not interested in any other answers but your own - just don't worry yourself about it. Focus on what you're having for tea instead.

After-all, it's all metaphysical poetic academic non-pragmatic unscientic mumbo-jumbo bullsh!t right, believed by retards and sand monkeys? If you really care, I'm sure Dawkins will tell you what you want to hear and you can feel all warm and fuzzy and proud, just a like a good believer. You can find the affirmation you so desperately crave. Heck, I think you can even get a t-shirt these days.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (469 days ago)

I have to thank Pike for brilliantly summing up the value of your comment. Hey Pike - thanks, you did a better job than I ever could.

So, back to where we were - you cannot give me any example, or even a hint, of something involving god/s before humans existed.

So I ask again, why should I even think that god created us when it looks like he came after us?

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

I have to thank Pike for brilliantly summing up the value of your comment. Hey Pike - thanks, you did a better job than I ever could.

So, back to where we were - you cannot give me any example, or even a hint, of something involving god/s before humans existed.

So I ask again, why should I even think that god created us when it looks like he came after us?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (469 days ago)

How endearing - it looks as though you didn't need to go as far as Dawkins to get that comforting affimation you were after! Use that technique (ahem) more often if you feel you need it; I guess support from a like-minded congregation is important in many belief sets and a sudden unprecedented commenter is as good as any. Now you know what fellowship is all about.

I felt my points were pretty clear, but maybe I aimed a little high. I gave you plenty of examples of things before humans that theists could claim support the existence of a god - I reply again, "quantum theory, spooky action at a distance, string theory, and yes dark matter etc. etc" and even your own example of "stars and galaxies billions of lights away acting in impossible ways" - ("spinning without sufficient mass"), and that's not starting on the origins of the universe. I guess you missed those points.

And now you will say no, that doesn't count as evidence or a sign. And then my comment "it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective" comes back into play which I guess you also missed. To theists, the "evidence" makes it look like god came first. To atheists, the "evidence" makes it look like humans did. To true agnostics, it's ambiguous. But yes, I realise you think you're really really right, and the most right, and they're not right at all. Good on you.

Why should you believe X, Y or X? No one is trying to get you to believe in anything, least of all me. I'm agnostic, remember? Not everyone is as evangelical as a New Atheist - I'm not trying to sway your opinion any more than I would try and convince a Scientologist they're wrong. Maybe I'd like you to be more consistent, critical and more brutally logical, but your conclusions are personal and immutable. Your beliefs are not your fault; you haven't analysed them in any objective sense (just academic time wasting?), nor do you want to, nor do you need to. They're incorrigible and you can find enough people telling you you're right to at least feel right. Of course, you actually do exactly what anyone does - cherry pick what you class as evidence, and use it to support whatever attitudes you have inherited. It's an emotional and cultural position - but don't worry, it's actually perfect natural. It's very human. So no, I'm not telling you why you should or shouldn't believe anything - I just like watching people who think their way is the best / most true / most logical / most rational way squirm when they're put under the slightest pressure to justify it, outside of the usual second-hand tropes.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

How endearing - it looks as though you didn't need to go as far as Dawkins to get that comforting affimation you were after! Use that technique (ahem) more often if you feel you need it; I guess support from a like-minded congregation is important in many belief sets and a sudden unprecedented commenter is as good as any. Now you know what fellowship is all about.

I felt my points were pretty clear, but maybe I aimed a little high. I gave you plenty of examples of things before humans that theists could claim support the existence of a god - I reply again, "quantum theory, spooky action at a distance, string theory, and yes dark matter etc. etc" and even your own example of "stars and galaxies billions of lights away acting in impossible ways" - ("spinning without sufficient mass"), and that's not starting on the origins of the universe. I guess you missed those points.

And now you will say no, that doesn't count as evidence or a sign. And then my comment "it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective" comes back into play which I guess you also missed. To theists, the "evidence" makes it look like god came first. To atheists, the "evidence" makes it look like humans did. To true agnostics, it's ambiguous. But yes, I realise you think you're really really right, and the most right, and they're not right at all. Good on you.

Why should you believe X, Y or X? No one is trying to get you to believe in anything, least of all me. I'm agnostic, remember? Not everyone is as evangelical as a New Atheist - I'm not trying to sway your opinion any more than I would try and convince a Scientologist they're wrong. Maybe I'd like you to be more consistent, critical and more brutally logical, but your conclusions are personal and immutable. Your beliefs are not your fault; you haven't analysed them in any objective sense (just academic time wasting?), nor do you want to, nor do you need to. They're incorrigible and you can find enough people telling you you're right to at least feel right. Of course, you actually do exactly what anyone does - cherry pick what you class as evidence, and use it to support whatever attitudes you have inherited. It's an emotional and cultural position - but don't worry, it's actually perfect natural. It's very human. So no, I'm not telling you why you should or shouldn't believe anything - I just like watching people who think their way is the best / most true / most logical / most rational way squirm when they're put under the slightest pressure to justify it, outside of the usual second-hand tropes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (468 days ago)

There is nothing in quantum theory, dark matter, dark energy or big bang theory that suggests an intelligence.

All theists' thoughts are from their human brains. I'm looking for something, anything, that involves god but NOT humans. I just want to make sure that god is not just in our imagination. Do you have any better examples?

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

There is nothing in quantum theory, dark matter, dark energy or big bang theory that suggests an intelligence.

All theists' thoughts are from their human brains. I'm looking for something, anything, that involves god but NOT humans. I just want to make sure that god is not just in our imagination. Do you have any better examples?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (468 days ago)

And there we have it. Exactly as I said, thank you. Have another read:

"And now you will say no, that doesn't count as evidence or a sign. And then my comment "it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective" comes back into play which I guess you also missed. To theists, the "evidence" makes it look like god came first. To atheists, the "evidence" makes it look like humans did. To true agnostics, it's ambiguous."

So although all the things I listed (and much more that theists refer to) don't involve humans and could well involve gods, you are bound by your belief set to discount them as evidence because that interpretation would lead to a different conclusion. Just as you have shown, you cherry pick the evidence, as we all do. For that reason, there are no examples that you personally would find better. But you know that already. You've heavily invested in it.

[And just as a sidenote, remember you're not arguing merely against a god that shows intelligence as we would understand it, nor any particular formation of a god. You're a good little atheist - so no gods at all for you, of any kind. Tricky, I know.]

You remind me of a Catholic girl I met at university a long time ago. She once asked us to tell her one thing, just one thing, that shows her god doesn't exist. Obviously we tried, and I had more atheistic sympathies back then, but none of it was good enough. Of course, like you she wasn't really asking to be disproven; she was simply expressing the incorribility and confidence of her particular belief set, and her ability to find reasons to discount anything else. So no, you don't want to "make sure that god is not just in our imagination", and neither are you "here to learn". The exact opposite in fact. Ideally, you just want your belief set fed back to you and affirmed with the minimum scrutiny. Well you're in the right place. With a bit of luck Pike might show up again!

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

And there we have it. Exactly as I said, thank you. Have another read:

"And now you will say no, that doesn't count as evidence or a sign. And then my comment "it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective" comes back into play which I guess you also missed. To theists, the "evidence" makes it look like god came first. To atheists, the "evidence" makes it look like humans did. To true agnostics, it's ambiguous."

So although all the things I listed (and much more that theists refer to) don't involve humans and could well involve gods, you are bound by your belief set to discount them as evidence because that interpretation would lead to a different conclusion. Just as you have shown, you cherry pick the evidence, as we all do. For that reason, there are no examples that you personally would find better. But you know that already. You've heavily invested in it.

[And just as a sidenote, remember you're not arguing merely against a god that shows intelligence as we would understand it, nor any particular formation of a god. You're a good little atheist - so no gods at all for you, of any kind. Tricky, I know.]

You remind me of a Catholic girl I met at university a long time ago. She once asked us to tell her one thing, just one thing, that shows her god doesn't exist. Obviously we tried, and I had more atheistic sympathies back then, but none of it was good enough. Of course, like you she wasn't really asking to be disproven; she was simply expressing the incorribility and confidence of her particular belief set, and her ability to find reasons to discount anything else. So no, you don't want to "make sure that god is not just in our imagination", and neither are you "here to learn". The exact opposite in fact. Ideally, you just want your belief set fed back to you and affirmed with the minimum scrutiny. Well you're in the right place. With a bit of luck Pike might show up again!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (468 days ago)

Just because something is puzzling, doesn't make it a sign of god.

"Spooky at a distance" is one of the more puzzling quantum phenomena. What is it about entanglement that you think might suggest god is involved?

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Just because something is puzzling, doesn't make it a sign of god.

"Spooky at a distance" is one of the more puzzling quantum phenomena. What is it about entanglement that you think might suggest god is involved?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (468 days ago)

Again, you are proving my point; Yes, I understand (and predicted) that you don't accept some things as a sign or evidence which others do, and similarly you accept some things as evidence which others don't.

I'm not about to go too deep into entanglement with you, because I suspect you have merely dipped into Youtube or Wikipedia, and I know your attitude towards academia. It's very easy to do this sort of subject matter a disservice, and I doubt yours was a genuine question. However, the theory of Q.E is even described as the 'god effect' by some science writers, and I can easily see why theists might use something it to support their views, so I'll try to summarise a few points as simply as I can, (pretending briefly that you have a real interest):

Spooky action shows that there is a real, functional and instantaneous connection between different matter regardless of space-time, and thus omnipresence becomes more plausible, along with religious claims such as prayer. 'Interconnectedness&# 39; is the wishy-washy poetic religious mumbo-jumbo that you'd complain about, yet it seems to be possible and actual.

This same alternative to superluminality posits an actual dimension that is also separate to space-time, and thus concepts like the after-life are more plausible; our experience of the universe is a product of our consciousness, and beyond that there is a more fundamental state of existence. Professor Lanza writes about this extensively in his separate theory of biocentrism.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equations suggest that time is a by-product of the entanglement process, only measurable by interfering with one element of the entangled particles (and thereby being within its system), and when viewed from outside the system / universe, there is simply a total and static quantum state. Thus omniscience or eternity becomes more plausible. Indeed some applications of the Copenhagen interpretation suggest that this external omniscient observer is not only possible but logically necessary for the collapse of the quantum wave-function collapse that we experience as time.

Of course none of this means there is definitely a god - no, puzzling doesn't make it a sign of god, but nor does it make it a sign of no god either. I realise it won't tick your boxes, because of that charming incorrigible belief set of yours that I referred to before. Despite this, it is abundantly clear that some of the ways of describing such a god that have previously been relegated as unscientific, or dismissed out of hand by atheists as "poetry", are not only present but provable phenomena in our universe. Many of the criticisms of the concept of god that atheists regurgitate to this day are based on naïve and outdated local realist models of the universe, and as the Bell inequalities show, such models are ill-equipped to explain the phenomena we now see. So of course we can understand how it all gives ammunition to the theists, because ultimately the deeper we go, the more possible a god seems to be.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Again, you are proving my point; Yes, I understand (and predicted) that you don't accept some things as a sign or evidence which others do, and similarly you accept some things as evidence which others don't.

I'm not about to go too deep into entanglement with you, because I suspect you have merely dipped into Youtube or Wikipedia, and I know your attitude towards academia. It's very easy to do this sort of subject matter a disservice, and I doubt yours was a genuine question. However, the theory of Q.E is even described as the 'god effect' by some science writers, and I can easily see why theists might use something it to support their views, so I'll try to summarise a few points as simply as I can, (pretending briefly that you have a real interest):

Spooky action shows that there is a real, functional and instantaneous connection between different matter regardless of space-time, and thus omnipresence becomes more plausible, along with religious claims such as prayer. 'Interconnectedness&# 39; is the wishy-washy poetic religious mumbo-jumbo that you'd complain about, yet it seems to be possible and actual.

This same alternative to superluminality posits an actual dimension that is also separate to space-time, and thus concepts like the after-life are more plausible; our experience of the universe is a product of our consciousness, and beyond that there is a more fundamental state of existence. Professor Lanza writes about this extensively in his separate theory of biocentrism.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equations suggest that time is a by-product of the entanglement process, only measurable by interfering with one element of the entangled particles (and thereby being within its system), and when viewed from outside the system / universe, there is simply a total and static quantum state. Thus omniscience or eternity becomes more plausible. Indeed some applications of the Copenhagen interpretation suggest that this external omniscient observer is not only possible but logically necessary for the collapse of the quantum wave-function collapse that we experience as time.

Of course none of this means there is definitely a god - no, puzzling doesn't make it a sign of god, but nor does it make it a sign of no god either. I realise it won't tick your boxes, because of that charming incorrigible belief set of yours that I referred to before. Despite this, it is abundantly clear that some of the ways of describing such a god that have previously been relegated as unscientific, or dismissed out of hand by atheists as "poetry", are not only present but provable phenomena in our universe. Many of the criticisms of the concept of god that atheists regurgitate to this day are based on naïve and outdated local realist models of the universe, and as the Bell inequalities show, such models are ill-equipped to explain the phenomena we now see. So of course we can understand how it all gives ammunition to the theists, because ultimately the deeper we go, the more possible a god seems to be.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (467 days ago)

I don't see the difference between what you've just written about QE and a theist thinking, the eye is so amazing it's a sign of god.

I'm looking for something that involves god, but NOT humans.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

I don't see the difference between what you've just written about QE and a theist thinking, the eye is so amazing it's a sign of god.

I'm looking for something that involves god, but NOT humans.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (467 days ago)

Gordon. Bennett. Sorry, but it's just as though you don't read a word I write.

This is my last attempt to simplify it because I'm losing the will: we both know that you won't agree that anything involves god, because you already believe there isn't such a thing. From a fervent atheist, it's just disingenuous - a loaded question, just like 'Where is god?' and countless other things you say. Everyone cherry-picks the evidence - did I mention that before? For exactly the same reasons, we both know that you can't name a single thing in the entire universe that a theist would say does *not* involve god, because they believe in god already. Like the incorrigible Catholic girl. As we have seen, I can detail the most obscure processes in the known universe that bizarrely and undeniably correspond to certain religious claims, and you could never admit even a passing similarity or possibility; and I assume I could detail the most naturalistic and explicable phenomena (or even unbridled evil) and a Christian would still see a benevolent god.

Man alive. It was atheists like you who stopped me identifying with atheism, despite having a head start - you somehow make it seem so irrational and entrenched. I think it's best you pass the baton on to "Pike" - I think there's more mileage in his discussion rather than your repetition of the same disingenuous questions...

You're absolutely right, I would never have had the patience to teach your type of student.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Gordon. Bennett. Sorry, but it's just as though you don't read a word I write.

This is my last attempt to simplify it because I'm losing the will: we both know that you won't agree that anything involves god, because you already believe there isn't such a thing. From a fervent atheist, it's just disingenuous - a loaded question, just like 'Where is god?' and countless other things you say. Everyone cherry-picks the evidence - did I mention that before? For exactly the same reasons, we both know that you can't name a single thing in the entire universe that a theist would say does *not* involve god, because they believe in god already. Like the incorrigible Catholic girl. As we have seen, I can detail the most obscure processes in the known universe that bizarrely and undeniably correspond to certain religious claims, and you could never admit even a passing similarity or possibility; and I assume I could detail the most naturalistic and explicable phenomena (or even unbridled evil) and a Christian would still see a benevolent god.

Man alive. It was atheists like you who stopped me identifying with atheism, despite having a head start - you somehow make it seem so irrational and entrenched. I think it's best you pass the baton on to "Pike" - I think there's more mileage in his discussion rather than your repetition of the same disingenuous questions...

You're absolutely right, I would never have had the patience to teach your type of student.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (467 days ago)

Pondering connections between entanglement and prayer, is something only humans do. I asked for something that did not involve humans. You tried a few times and failed. So now you say it's a loaded question. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

But seriously, I wasn't expecting you to come up with anything. If it makes you feel any better, I can't think of anything either.

All I'm saying is, for the person who believes his holy book's claim that god created humans, then think again. It really looks like god came after humans. The problem is that you are trying to shoehorn in some non-spatial omnipresent undetectable unprovable unnecessary unknowable thingamajig. Why?

I think you put too much value on extreme speculation.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

Pondering connections between entanglement and prayer, is something only humans do. I asked for something that did not involve humans. You tried a few times and failed. So now you say it's a loaded question. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

But seriously, I wasn't expecting you to come up with anything. If it makes you feel any better, I can't think of anything either.

All I'm saying is, for the person who believes his holy book's claim that god created humans, then think again. It really looks like god came after humans. The problem is that you are trying to shoehorn in some non-spatial omnipresent undetectable unprovable unnecessary unknowable thingamajig. Why?

I think you put too much value on extreme speculation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

I didn't tell you it was a loaded question mainly because if I were to treat you as someone who wishes to scrutinise his own beliefs and openly investigate those of others, the question has many viable answers: Indeed, not one of the phenomena I mentioned has anything to do with humans, other than having been discovered by them. Yes, pondering anything is a human activity, but my example wasn't the pondering itself but the subjects of the pondering, and as such are independent of us (short of Berkelian idealism etc). You failed to think of any examples yourself because your brain has to work hard to find reasons to discount certain active possibilities, otherwise you'd feel your belief set is undermined. As a firm agnostic, I don't have that problem; I have nothing invested, and can therefore merrily accept any possibilities without wildly speculating whether they are true or false - I don't need to deny such possibilities for the sake of my belief set, nor shoehorn anything in.

Yes, you can repeat all you like that to it looks to *you* like god came after humans - that's your speculation, and lovely it is too. I get it, well done for re-affirming yourself. To plenty of theists (including plenty of physicists), it looks the opposite, and to many agnostics including myself the jury is necessarily out and neither group's speculation is necessary.

The irony is that I place very little value on extreme speculation (other than personal human preference) - each to their own, it doesn't make any of you right. What you're finding so very difficult (just as any hardened believer would), is that I feel exactly the same about your extreme speculations as theirs.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

I didn't tell you it was a loaded question mainly because if I were to treat you as someone who wishes to scrutinise his own beliefs and openly investigate those of others, the question has many viable answers: Indeed, not one of the phenomena I mentioned has anything to do with humans, other than having been discovered by them. Yes, pondering anything is a human activity, but my example wasn't the pondering itself but the subjects of the pondering, and as such are independent of us (short of Berkelian idealism etc). You failed to think of any examples yourself because your brain has to work hard to find reasons to discount certain active possibilities, otherwise you'd feel your belief set is undermined. As a firm agnostic, I don't have that problem; I have nothing invested, and can therefore merrily accept any possibilities without wildly speculating whether they are true or false - I don't need to deny such possibilities for the sake of my belief set, nor shoehorn anything in.

Yes, you can repeat all you like that to it looks to *you* like god came after humans - that's your speculation, and lovely it is too. I get it, well done for re-affirming yourself. To plenty of theists (including plenty of physicists), it looks the opposite, and to many agnostics including myself the jury is necessarily out and neither group's speculation is necessary.

The irony is that I place very little value on extreme speculation (other than personal human preference) - each to their own, it doesn't make any of you right. What you're finding so very difficult (just as any hardened believer would), is that I feel exactly the same about your extreme speculations as theirs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (466 days ago)

" Spooky action shows that there is a real, functional and instantaneous connection between different matter regardless of space-time, and thus omnipresence becomes more plausible, along with religious claims such as prayer" How is that not a human pondering a connection between entanglement and prayer?

There is nothing observed in entanglement that links it with prayer. Any link is just an interesting human idea.

Why do you keep trying to shoehorn in unknowables? I ask something simple to get people to question any holy book's claim that god made man. And because you don't like the implications, you introduce unknowables, interspersed with a few insults. That's dishonest.

You also agree that man-made religions like Christianity and Islam are bullshit, but you're too PC to say so. That's also dishonest.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

" Spooky action shows that there is a real, functional and instantaneous connection between different matter regardless of space-time, and thus omnipresence becomes more plausible, along with religious claims such as prayer" How is that not a human pondering a connection between entanglement and prayer?

There is nothing observed in entanglement that links it with prayer. Any link is just an interesting human idea.

Why do you keep trying to shoehorn in unknowables? I ask something simple to get people to question any holy book's claim that god made man. And because you don't like the implications, you introduce unknowables, interspersed with a few insults. That's dishonest.

You also agree that man-made religions like Christianity and Islam are bullshit, but you're too PC to say so. That's also dishonest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

Dishonesty is pretending to ask real questions when you are not interested in any answer but the one you have already decided upon, and pretending to reflect on your beliefs is not the same as actually reflecting.

I repeat, the pondering is not my example. The instantaneous connection is the example, and that is clearly not a result of humans. You believe the (proven) connection doesn't show involvement from a god (as a divine methodology); theists believe it does; and hard agnostics believe it shows the possibility. I also repeat, I am not trying to shoehorn anything in because the only thing I am interested in is actual possibility, and that is already there even if your worldview won't let you see it. If anything, it seems to be you who is shoehorning in the idea of a universe without any form of god, elbowing possibilities out of the way to make space for your mindset. You're the one speculating, and I simply see no need.

And don't put words into my mouth. I absolutely would not judge that all "man-made religions like Christianity and Islam are bullshit". That's the militant evangelical judgemental streak of an New Atheist, or a religious conservative, not an agnostic. "Judge less, understand more", as Yoda once told me. No, I don't believe in a specific deity as described verbatim within the interpretations I have studied, but religions are generally positive and benevolent cultural practices of guidance and self-discipline that aim to describe something profound and true yet unscientific. Not exactly 'bullshit'. However, I would say one of the most harmful, judgemental and speculative religious forms is your New Atheism; you have your churches, your fellowship, your prophets, your texts, your icon, your mantra, your rhetoric, your self-righteous speculations, and clearly your absolute intolerance and lack of engagement with other opinions and counterclaims - what are you missing? But no - I know you could never see that. That's fine. I expect nothing more from people with this kind of belief.

Anyway, now you've gone into the PC gene / dishonest / sloppiness territory you're reverting to your repetitive tropes and trying to score points rather than engage. I don't heed allegations of political correctness from someone who once suggested trans people should use a toilet that suits their appearance so as not to upset anyone! Absurd. It all gets a bit silly the more frustrated you get, so let's leave it there. As I advised you before, leave this to Pike. Don't worry - he's an approved member of your congregation, so you might allow yourself to learn something from him. You're here to learn, after-all.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Dishonesty is pretending to ask real questions when you are not interested in any answer but the one you have already decided upon, and pretending to reflect on your beliefs is not the same as actually reflecting.

I repeat, the pondering is not my example. The instantaneous connection is the example, and that is clearly not a result of humans. You believe the (proven) connection doesn't show involvement from a god (as a divine methodology); theists believe it does; and hard agnostics believe it shows the possibility. I also repeat, I am not trying to shoehorn anything in because the only thing I am interested in is actual possibility, and that is already there even if your worldview won't let you see it. If anything, it seems to be you who is shoehorning in the idea of a universe without any form of god, elbowing possibilities out of the way to make space for your mindset. You're the one speculating, and I simply see no need.

And don't put words into my mouth. I absolutely would not judge that all "man-made religions like Christianity and Islam are bullshit". That's the militant evangelical judgemental streak of an New Atheist, or a religious conservative, not an agnostic. "Judge less, understand more", as Yoda once told me. No, I don't believe in a specific deity as described verbatim within the interpretations I have studied, but religions are generally positive and benevolent cultural practices of guidance and self-discipline that aim to describe something profound and true yet unscientific. Not exactly 'bullshit'. However, I would say one of the most harmful, judgemental and speculative religious forms is your New Atheism; you have your churches, your fellowship, your prophets, your texts, your icon, your mantra, your rhetoric, your self-righteous speculations, and clearly your absolute intolerance and lack of engagement with other opinions and counterclaims - what are you missing? But no - I know you could never see that. That's fine. I expect nothing more from people with this kind of belief.

Anyway, now you've gone into the PC gene / dishonest / sloppiness territory you're reverting to your repetitive tropes and trying to score points rather than engage. I don't heed allegations of political correctness from someone who once suggested trans people should use a toilet that suits their appearance so as not to upset anyone! Absurd. It all gets a bit silly the more frustrated you get, so let's leave it there. As I advised you before, leave this to Pike. Don't worry - he's an approved member of your congregation, so you might allow yourself to learn something from him. You're here to learn, after-all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (465 days ago)

I apologise for saying you thought Christianity and Islam are bullshit. That was a bit strong. Is it fair to say you believe that literal interpretations of the holy books are not accurate descriptions of the universe, but since most religious people have reinterpreted them and found meaning and value, then that's OK.

I still don't understand your position on "instantaneous connection". This is how I see it: we've got entanglement, god and humans. Remove humans and we're left with entanglement but no god. Replace humans and god instantaneously returns. Just repeat with other puzzling natural phenomena until you are satisfied that god requires humans to exist.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

I apologise for saying you thought Christianity and Islam are bullshit. That was a bit strong. Is it fair to say you believe that literal interpretations of the holy books are not accurate descriptions of the universe, but since most religious people have reinterpreted them and found meaning and value, then that's OK.

I still don't understand your position on "instantaneous connection". This is how I see it: we've got entanglement, god and humans. Remove humans and we're left with entanglement but no god. Replace humans and god instantaneously returns. Just repeat with other puzzling natural phenomena until you are satisfied that god requires humans to exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (468 days ago)

ProudAgnostic - I think the "evidence" argument boils down to: (1) We hypothesize that a god created everything. (2) Everything exists! (3) Therefore our hypothesis is correct.

There are several problems with this. First, if item (3) was modified to "(3a) This is consistent with our hypothesis" then I would not have so much of a problem.

Consider this argument on seeing a solar eclipse: (1) A monster is eating the Sun! (2) Bang drums to chase it away! (3) It worked, the Sun is coming back!

Another well-known example is finding evidence for the hypothesis "all crows are black." I show you a crow and it is black. And another one. After 100 crows, the evidence is piling up. Or so it seems. Logically the hypothesis is equivalent to "If it isn't black, it's not a crow." So if I hold up a glass of milk, it's evidence that all crows are black. And I can produce lots of such evidence supporting my hypothesis without getting out of my armchair or going near an actual crow.

All the above illustrates that finding evidence to *support* a hypothesis is a tricky business, and produces less than convincing conclusions. Which is why science does not use it. Instead, science looks for evidence that will *disprove* a hypothesis. For example, it looks for a crow that is not black. This requires going out and examining lots of crows. If, after much study and effort, you still cannot find a non-black crow, then that amount of work is a measure of how much confidence you can have in the hypothesis. The more effort that fails to disprove it, the more confidence you can have that it is correct. Of course, it may be disproved tomorrow - so confidence never reaches 100%.

For this to work it must be possible to say what evidence would disprove the hypothesis, and then you can look for that evidence. Many hypotheses cannot possibly be disproved. My favourite is Last Tuesdayism. It may be true or it may be false, but science cannot say which.

The hypothesis that a god created everything is like that. What evidence can there possibly be to disprove the hypothesis that a supernatural being existing beyond the reach of all our senses did something creative before space and time even existed? It cannot be proved or disproved. But the implication of this is that since the existence or otherwise of such an entity cannot be proved or disproved, it can have no real impact on our lives or on any part of the universe. If it did, then it could be tested or demonstrated.

Of course many people say that "Jesus lives" etc but when you examine these claims they always in my exerience rely on using words in some metaphorical sense. Or they are logically impossible, like knowing the future and having free will.

The final step is to apply Occam's Razor. Since the God Hypothesis has no discernible effect, we can do without it.

Apologies for a long post!

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

ProudAgnostic - I think the "evidence" argument boils down to: (1) We hypothesize that a god created everything. (2) Everything exists! (3) Therefore our hypothesis is correct.

There are several problems with this. First, if item (3) was modified to "(3a) This is consistent with our hypothesis" then I would not have so much of a problem.

Consider this argument on seeing a solar eclipse: (1) A monster is eating the Sun! (2) Bang drums to chase it away! (3) It worked, the Sun is coming back!

Another well-known example is finding evidence for the hypothesis "all crows are black." I show you a crow and it is black. And another one. After 100 crows, the evidence is piling up. Or so it seems. Logically the hypothesis is equivalent to "If it isn't black, it's not a crow." So if I hold up a glass of milk, it's evidence that all crows are black. And I can produce lots of such evidence supporting my hypothesis without getting out of my armchair or going near an actual crow.

All the above illustrates that finding evidence to *support* a hypothesis is a tricky business, and produces less than convincing conclusions. Which is why science does not use it. Instead, science looks for evidence that will *disprove* a hypothesis. For example, it looks for a crow that is not black. This requires going out and examining lots of crows. If, after much study and effort, you still cannot find a non-black crow, then that amount of work is a measure of how much confidence you can have in the hypothesis. The more effort that fails to disprove it, the more confidence you can have that it is correct. Of course, it may be disproved tomorrow - so confidence never reaches 100%.

For this to work it must be possible to say what evidence would disprove the hypothesis, and then you can look for that evidence. Many hypotheses cannot possibly be disproved. My favourite is Last Tuesdayism. It may be true or it may be false, but science cannot say which.

The hypothesis that a god created everything is like that. What evidence can there possibly be to disprove the hypothesis that a supernatural being existing beyond the reach of all our senses did something creative before space and time even existed? It cannot be proved or disproved. But the implication of this is that since the existence or otherwise of such an entity cannot be proved or disproved, it can have no real impact on our lives or on any part of the universe. If it did, then it could be tested or demonstrated.

Of course many people say that "Jesus lives" etc but when you examine these claims they always in my exerience rely on using words in some metaphorical sense. Or they are logically impossible, like knowing the future and having free will.

The final step is to apply Occam's Razor. Since the God Hypothesis has no discernible effect, we can do without it.

Apologies for a long post!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (467 days ago)

Sorry I missed your comment. Your opening gambit strikes me as a bit of a strawman argument - there are any number of theistic arguments from teleology to ontology, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find a hypothesis as naive and openly circular as that among genuine religious followers. But you're right - it wouldn't be very convincing if you were ever to find it.

I'm very familiar with the crow (raven) paradox for inductive reasoning. I personally think the solution is within Bayesian probability that you almost alluded to - the notion of how much a piece of evidence gives you confidence to believe a hypothesis. For example, if you were to find a billion items that weren't crows and weren't black (such as your milk), it would to a small degree help confirm your black crow theory, in a finite system. In this way, scientists can actually both try to confirm and disconfirm theories (often at the same time) because - to extend the paradox - you can't always find any crows. Of course the issue with Bayesian probability is that it's subjective and is entirely redundant for anything relating to theism or atheism.

But I think the gist of your comment is akin to Popper's verificationism which obviously doesn't really deal with what is true, but what is 'scientific' or at least 'scientifically testable'. I would basically agree that belief in a metaphysical deity is not amenable to scientific evidence-gathering or counterproof. I think most religious believers would agree too. I support the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria from Gould et al; that religious and quasi-religious belief operates in an entirely different sphere to science, which in no way devalues it, nor suggests it isn't based on truth.

The problem is, many of your arguments (including verificationism) can be used against hard atheism too, so that isn't a scientific hypothesis either. After-all, what evidence can possibly be used to prove that no god has ever existed? For a start, you'd need to agree with theists on what exactly constitutes a god and what would you be expecting to find or see. And even if that were possible, it boils down to what we consider proof, again: you could look under a stone and say 'no god here'; you could look at the existence of evil and say 'no god here'; you could ask very nicely in a prayer for god to reveal himself and if he didn't then 'no god here.' Not exactly meaningful scientific support for the original broad hypothesis. In short, it is just another unscientific speculation that no one can ever prove.

And while Occam's razor sometimes works, it would have done away with some of our most cherished scientific principles - it isn't often the simplest solution that is the most accurate. Besides, the same principle suggests: If the hypothesis that there is NO god (or that the universe was created without a god) has no discernible effect, we can do without that too. After-all, that depends on assumptions as well. Well, you can gather by my username, I think what we end up with is impartial agnosticism.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Sorry I missed your comment. Your opening gambit strikes me as a bit of a strawman argument - there are any number of theistic arguments from teleology to ontology, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find a hypothesis as naive and openly circular as that among genuine religious followers. But you're right - it wouldn't be very convincing if you were ever to find it.

I'm very familiar with the crow (raven) paradox for inductive reasoning. I personally think the solution is within Bayesian probability that you almost alluded to - the notion of how much a piece of evidence gives you confidence to believe a hypothesis. For example, if you were to find a billion items that weren't crows and weren't black (such as your milk), it would to a small degree help confirm your black crow theory, in a finite system. In this way, scientists can actually both try to confirm and disconfirm theories (often at the same time) because - to extend the paradox - you can't always find any crows. Of course the issue with Bayesian probability is that it's subjective and is entirely redundant for anything relating to theism or atheism.

But I think the gist of your comment is akin to Popper's verificationism which obviously doesn't really deal with what is true, but what is 'scientific' or at least 'scientifically testable'. I would basically agree that belief in a metaphysical deity is not amenable to scientific evidence-gathering or counterproof. I think most religious believers would agree too. I support the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria from Gould et al; that religious and quasi-religious belief operates in an entirely different sphere to science, which in no way devalues it, nor suggests it isn't based on truth.

The problem is, many of your arguments (including verificationism) can be used against hard atheism too, so that isn't a scientific hypothesis either. After-all, what evidence can possibly be used to prove that no god has ever existed? For a start, you'd need to agree with theists on what exactly constitutes a god and what would you be expecting to find or see. And even if that were possible, it boils down to what we consider proof, again: you could look under a stone and say 'no god here'; you could look at the existence of evil and say 'no god here'; you could ask very nicely in a prayer for god to reveal himself and if he didn't then 'no god here.' Not exactly meaningful scientific support for the original broad hypothesis. In short, it is just another unscientific speculation that no one can ever prove.

And while Occam's razor sometimes works, it would have done away with some of our most cherished scientific principles - it isn't often the simplest solution that is the most accurate. Besides, the same principle suggests: If the hypothesis that there is NO god (or that the universe was created without a god) has no discernible effect, we can do without that too. After-all, that depends on assumptions as well. Well, you can gather by my username, I think what we end up with is impartial agnosticism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (467 days ago)

Hey Pike, you saved my skin - yet again. That was a brilliant little chapter about evidence. Very clear, and considering what you covered, very short. You should be a teacher if you're not one already.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Hey Pike, you saved my skin - yet again. That was a brilliant little chapter about evidence. Very clear, and considering what you covered, very short. You should be a teacher if you're not one already.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (467 days ago)

Euw, Walter! It was endearing at first, but such crawling sycophancy towards a fellow church member is now a bit cloying. There is definitely a religious need in you as clear as any I have seen - scientists think it's unavoidable, even among atheists.

I agree though, "Pike" seems to be able to write clearly even if most of his rhetoric is more potent against your atheism than my agnosticism. I think he missed my main points about the subjectivity of evidence (rather than the verifiability of a hypothesis), but he wasn't so much refuting my argument but making his own.

PS: I hope you learned a little about QE. Were you hoping Pike would respond to that comment for you? Don't worry yourself about it. You've done your best and I don't expect any more these days.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Euw, Walter! It was endearing at first, but such crawling sycophancy towards a fellow church member is now a bit cloying. There is definitely a religious need in you as clear as any I have seen - scientists think it's unavoidable, even among atheists.

I agree though, "Pike" seems to be able to write clearly even if most of his rhetoric is more potent against your atheism than my agnosticism. I think he missed my main points about the subjectivity of evidence (rather than the verifiability of a hypothesis), but he wasn't so much refuting my argument but making his own.

PS: I hope you learned a little about QE. Were you hoping Pike would respond to that comment for you? Don't worry yourself about it. You've done your best and I don't expect any more these days.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (467 days ago)

grandpa dont tell me you havent noticed some thing about pike. for a smart guy you are pretty dumb

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

grandpa dont tell me you havent noticed some thing about pike. for a smart guy you are pretty dumb

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (467 days ago)

I'm not too interested in the whole 'so-and-so is really so-and-so' malarkey if that's what you're talking about. I'm aware of the sock puppetry that goes on, and yes, Pike mysteriously stepped in with no BoreMe history (AFAIK) ready to rescue Walter. However, I'm not sure I care. Maybe Jesus sent him.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

I'm not too interested in the whole 'so-and-so is really so-and-so' malarkey if that's what you're talking about. I'm aware of the sock puppetry that goes on, and yes, Pike mysteriously stepped in with no BoreMe history (AFAIK) ready to rescue Walter. However, I'm not sure I care. Maybe Jesus sent him.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (467 days ago)

I use different names much of the time. Keeps the NSA off, and amuses me. But I'm not anyone else (eg WalterEgo) so don't worry about sock puppetry.

Regarding gods, I think I would describe myself as agnostic because it is possible to conceive of gods whose existence (in whatever realm) cannot be proved or disproved.

In practical terms, though, such gods are by definition irrelevant to daily life, so I am atheist because I don't have a belief that any such gods actually do exist.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

I use different names much of the time. Keeps the NSA off, and amuses me. But I'm not anyone else (eg WalterEgo) so don't worry about sock puppetry.

Regarding gods, I think I would describe myself as agnostic because it is possible to conceive of gods whose existence (in whatever realm) cannot be proved or disproved.

In practical terms, though, such gods are by definition irrelevant to daily life, so I am atheist because I don't have a belief that any such gods actually do exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

Don't worry - I didn't think you were Walter, though your sudden appearance was amusing. In other moods, he criticises the type of academic thought experiments you referenced, and you generally write as though you have read a little of what you're talking about. It's refreshingly not him.

I'm always surprised at people who claim to be agnostic yet who also claim that no gods exist. (For the semantics between a lack of belief and a negative belief, see below). If you genuinely believe such things can't be known, it seems to be willfully speculative. I appreciate there are different brands of atheism, agnosticism and theism, and an overlap of course, but my personal agnosticism is that I don't believe in any particular god, but I equally do not believe in a universe without a god at all. I just don't know and I don't need to guess. Just because the descriptions of gods I have heard don't quite add up for me, I am not going to go all out and speculate that therefore no type of god exists anywhere in any form in the universe. I can guess that none of those ones exist, but that's not the usual modest claim of atheists. In practical terms, it's irrelevant to my daily life if the universe does *not* have a god anywhere in it too, so another reason why I don't need to make that guess. (As an aside, in practical terms it *does* seem affect people's daily lives if they have faith or spirituality, but that's a different discussion.)

There is a slightly clumsy analogy which might help to explain, at least semantically, albeit one that was lost on Walt. Humour me: 10,000 years ago, the largest moon in our solar system either had an odd or an even number of craters. Logically, it must have been one or the other - in the same way that this universe either has a god in it somewhere, or it doesn't. You could say that you lack a belief that it had an odd number of craters - but that wouldn't be a reason to believe the number was even (the logical alternative) and it would be rather strange if you didn't lack a belief about that possibility too. People are entitled to guess if they want, odd or even, but ultimately coming down either side of the logical binary position is going to be speculation. After-all, there's not much we can pull from the current world to help us guess, and there's no way of us actually finding out. Therefore, the most sensible response seems to be a simple 'I just don't know either way', and quite possibly 'it doesn't matter'. That's feels like agnosticism, not atheism.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Don't worry - I didn't think you were Walter, though your sudden appearance was amusing. In other moods, he criticises the type of academic thought experiments you referenced, and you generally write as though you have read a little of what you're talking about. It's refreshingly not him.

I'm always surprised at people who claim to be agnostic yet who also claim that no gods exist. (For the semantics between a lack of belief and a negative belief, see below). If you genuinely believe such things can't be known, it seems to be willfully speculative. I appreciate there are different brands of atheism, agnosticism and theism, and an overlap of course, but my personal agnosticism is that I don't believe in any particular god, but I equally do not believe in a universe without a god at all. I just don't know and I don't need to guess. Just because the descriptions of gods I have heard don't quite add up for me, I am not going to go all out and speculate that therefore no type of god exists anywhere in any form in the universe. I can guess that none of those ones exist, but that's not the usual modest claim of atheists. In practical terms, it's irrelevant to my daily life if the universe does *not* have a god anywhere in it too, so another reason why I don't need to make that guess. (As an aside, in practical terms it *does* seem affect people's daily lives if they have faith or spirituality, but that's a different discussion.)

There is a slightly clumsy analogy which might help to explain, at least semantically, albeit one that was lost on Walt. Humour me: 10,000 years ago, the largest moon in our solar system either had an odd or an even number of craters. Logically, it must have been one or the other - in the same way that this universe either has a god in it somewhere, or it doesn't. You could say that you lack a belief that it had an odd number of craters - but that wouldn't be a reason to believe the number was even (the logical alternative) and it would be rather strange if you didn't lack a belief about that possibility too. People are entitled to guess if they want, odd or even, but ultimately coming down either side of the logical binary position is going to be speculation. After-all, there's not much we can pull from the current world to help us guess, and there's no way of us actually finding out. Therefore, the most sensible response seems to be a simple 'I just don't know either way', and quite possibly 'it doesn't matter'. That's feels like agnosticism, not atheism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (466 days ago)

PA - the example of odd or even craters is not quite comparable, as it is entirely withing the natural realm and doesn't involve existence or non-existence. A better example might be Russel's teapot.

Generally the default position regarding existence is to assume that whatever it is doesn't exist unless you have good reason to suppose that it does. Lacking belief in gods makes me atheist. Lacking disbelief would make me theist - this does not seem to me to be equivalent.

If you are lacking disbelief in gods, then you should also lack disbelief in Russel's teapot and countless other entities. Where do you stand on that?

Finally, atheism and agnosticism are not different points on the same spectrum. One is about beliefs, the other about knowledge. That is why I describe myself as both atheist and agnostic. I don't have theistic belief, but I also don't think you can be 100% certain. Russel's teapot may indeed be out there, but I don't believe that it is.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

PA - the example of odd or even craters is not quite comparable, as it is entirely withing the natural realm and doesn't involve existence or non-existence. A better example might be Russel's teapot.

Generally the default position regarding existence is to assume that whatever it is doesn't exist unless you have good reason to suppose that it does. Lacking belief in gods makes me atheist. Lacking disbelief would make me theist - this does not seem to me to be equivalent.

If you are lacking disbelief in gods, then you should also lack disbelief in Russel's teapot and countless other entities. Where do you stand on that?

Finally, atheism and agnosticism are not different points on the same spectrum. One is about beliefs, the other about knowledge. That is why I describe myself as both atheist and agnostic. I don't have theistic belief, but I also don't think you can be 100% certain. Russel's teapot may indeed be out there, but I don't believe that it is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

I think your reasons for excluding the craters analogy are a little trifling: On a purely logical level, it doesn't matter whether it relates to existence or non-existence (so long as it's a logical bivalence), but if you think it does matter you can easily change as follows - Do you believe that a moon of sufficient size to be the largest in our solar system existed with an odd number of craters 10,000 years ago? You probably wisely lack that belief, because you don't have "good reason" or evidence for it. Yet you should (IMHO) also lack a belief in its logical opposite - that such a moon with odd craters did *not* exist, because you lack supporting evidence for the same reasons. Lacking belief in one option should not make you have a belief in the other. The rational position seems to be accepting we don't (can't) know about either possibility, and if we wish to guess, accepting that our guesses are just that. (By the way, it's worth being careful when you use terms like "good reason" because one of my main points elsewhere has been the subjectivity of evidence and proof.)

Conversely, I think Russell's ceramic teapot is a very poor analogy for a metaphysical being, along with Flying Spaghetti monsters, the Garage Dragon and the like. It concerns the reach of mathematical probability - I trust you're familiar with the basic distinction between frequentist and Bayesian models. (By the way, I originally wrote this on another thread so apologies if you've seen it before): "The examples always deliberately start with something we all believe to be unlikely for good reason, and compare it with the notion of a god. In the case of a teapot, we have numerous physical real-world examples of teapots, and a complete back history from its invention. We can invoke frequentist probability too and note how many teapots we have found in the orbits that are close enough to observe. We also have extensive data from space exploration and never have we discovered anything to suggest that an actual teapot in space is even possible (quite the opposite, if anything). All good grounds for initially assuming a low prior probability (as described within Bayesian probability). However, with the notion of a metaphysical supreme being, we have no such data, no such precedent, and no one I know of thinks a supreme being of some kind is actually impossible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain a prior probability in the way one can with a teapot or a spaghetti monster." Unlike ceramic teapots, once you try to find 'priors' for a metaphysical being you quickly end up with unworkably subjective guesswork - what is the initial prior probability that if any god existed, it would allow some things that are evil? What is the prior probability that if any god existed, it would interact with us in ways we could understand or measure? What is the probability that if no current interpretations of a god were exactly accurate, that no god exists at all? Etc. etc. etc. We just, don't, know.

I did say that there is overlap betwen atheism, agnosticism and theism, and your speculations clearly inhabit the first two. But in my case, my hard agnosticism means I cannot meaningfully be described as theist or atheist and is very much the alternative to both, so in that respect it can be on the same spectrum. It enables me to avoid the type of speculations that I find unnecessary and unscientific. Ideally, there would be another term for someone who lacked belief in a godless universe and who equally lacked belief in a god, but agnostic is the closest I get.

So in short, no I don't believe in anything as specific or as familiar or as probabilistic as a teapot in space - but if you swap it for a very broad concept of a metaphysical entity covering everything from pantheism to multitheism... I don't have enough information. I have nothing invested, no particular mindset I wish to protect, so I don't know and I'm not willing to guess.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I think your reasons for excluding the craters analogy are a little trifling: On a purely logical level, it doesn't matter whether it relates to existence or non-existence (so long as it's a logical bivalence), but if you think it does matter you can easily change as follows - Do you believe that a moon of sufficient size to be the largest in our solar system existed with an odd number of craters 10,000 years ago? You probably wisely lack that belief, because you don't have "good reason" or evidence for it. Yet you should (IMHO) also lack a belief in its logical opposite - that such a moon with odd craters did *not* exist, because you lack supporting evidence for the same reasons. Lacking belief in one option should not make you have a belief in the other. The rational position seems to be accepting we don't (can't) know about either possibility, and if we wish to guess, accepting that our guesses are just that. (By the way, it's worth being careful when you use terms like "good reason" because one of my main points elsewhere has been the subjectivity of evidence and proof.)

Conversely, I think Russell's ceramic teapot is a very poor analogy for a metaphysical being, along with Flying Spaghetti monsters, the Garage Dragon and the like. It concerns the reach of mathematical probability - I trust you're familiar with the basic distinction between frequentist and Bayesian models. (By the way, I originally wrote this on another thread so apologies if you've seen it before): "The examples always deliberately start with something we all believe to be unlikely for good reason, and compare it with the notion of a god. In the case of a teapot, we have numerous physical real-world examples of teapots, and a complete back history from its invention. We can invoke frequentist probability too and note how many teapots we have found in the orbits that are close enough to observe. We also have extensive data from space exploration and never have we discovered anything to suggest that an actual teapot in space is even possible (quite the opposite, if anything). All good grounds for initially assuming a low prior probability (as described within Bayesian probability). However, with the notion of a metaphysical supreme being, we have no such data, no such precedent, and no one I know of thinks a supreme being of some kind is actually impossible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain a prior probability in the way one can with a teapot or a spaghetti monster." Unlike ceramic teapots, once you try to find 'priors' for a metaphysical being you quickly end up with unworkably subjective guesswork - what is the initial prior probability that if any god existed, it would allow some things that are evil? What is the prior probability that if any god existed, it would interact with us in ways we could understand or measure? What is the probability that if no current interpretations of a god were exactly accurate, that no god exists at all? Etc. etc. etc. We just, don't, know.

I did say that there is overlap betwen atheism, agnosticism and theism, and your speculations clearly inhabit the first two. But in my case, my hard agnosticism means I cannot meaningfully be described as theist or atheist and is very much the alternative to both, so in that respect it can be on the same spectrum. It enables me to avoid the type of speculations that I find unnecessary and unscientific. Ideally, there would be another term for someone who lacked belief in a godless universe and who equally lacked belief in a god, but agnostic is the closest I get.

So in short, no I don't believe in anything as specific or as familiar or as probabilistic as a teapot in space - but if you swap it for a very broad concept of a metaphysical entity covering everything from pantheism to multitheism... I don't have enough information. I have nothing invested, no particular mindset I wish to protect, so I don't know and I'm not willing to guess.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (466 days ago)

Great you clarified Russell's teapot was ceramic. Now I understand what you're talking about.

Hey Pike, just one more favour - can you decipher PA's response for those with brains smaller than a moon. Thanks.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Great you clarified Russell's teapot was ceramic. Now I understand what you're talking about.

Hey Pike, just one more favour - can you decipher PA's response for those with brains smaller than a moon. Thanks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

Actually, the fact that most teapots are ceramic is one of the many factors than enable us to establish prior probabilities of such a thing existing in space. So, what is a god made from, that makes you think it's equally unlikely?

That's not a real question by the way, don't stress. I realise this stuff isn't for you and that you don't understand what I'm on about - don't worry yourself about it, it was for Pike. You've had a little go and you've shown that you can't afford yourself a gram of curiosity or objectivity for fear of betraying that special worldview of yours. Fine. It's not for me to wake anyone from their 'dogmatic slumber' so speculate all you like. To me it's as quaint, harmless and naive as the little old ladies that go to the Methodist chapel. Back to Pike.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

Actually, the fact that most teapots are ceramic is one of the many factors than enable us to establish prior probabilities of such a thing existing in space. So, what is a god made from, that makes you think it's equally unlikely?

That's not a real question by the way, don't stress. I realise this stuff isn't for you and that you don't understand what I'm on about - don't worry yourself about it, it was for Pike. You've had a little go and you've shown that you can't afford yourself a gram of curiosity or objectivity for fear of betraying that special worldview of yours. Fine. It's not for me to wake anyone from their 'dogmatic slumber' so speculate all you like. To me it's as quaint, harmless and naive as the little old ladies that go to the Methodist chapel. Back to Pike.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (466 days ago)

PA - The difference between even/odd craters and existent/nonexistent entities is significant. Occam's Razor applies to one but not to the other.

Of course Occam's Razor not a law, more of a guideline. Incidentally it is usually expressed that the explanation with fewer entities is more likely to be "true." I think instead it is just that an explanation with fewer entities is simpler and therefore "better." One way in which simpler is better is that simpler is easier to disprove, if it is wrong.

In the case of how the universe came to be, atheists don't even have an explanation. We have the "null explanation" which is "we don't know." Adding a creator god seems to explain everything but in fact explains nothing (*), while positing an entity that is more complex than the universe we were trying to explain. So we have two equally ineffective explanations, but one involves an extra entity which would seem to require even more explanation. Occam's Razor applies.

(*) The answer to any question about the universe becomes "that's how god wanted it."

Actually I am not even sure if an explanation is possible. An explanation is an account of how something is the consequence of something simpler, as the result of some kind of laws. I don't see how a god that is not subject to any laws can be explained. Or how anything can come into existence from a situation where no laws hold. But then, neither can I convceive of nothing existing at all. I question whether we are all just spouting hot air about these matters.

ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment

PA - The difference between even/odd craters and existent/nonexistent entities is significant. Occam's Razor applies to one but not to the other.

Of course Occam's Razor not a law, more of a guideline. Incidentally it is usually expressed that the explanation with fewer entities is more likely to be "true." I think instead it is just that an explanation with fewer entities is simpler and therefore "better." One way in which simpler is better is that simpler is easier to disprove, if it is wrong.

In the case of how the universe came to be, atheists don't even have an explanation. We have the "null explanation" which is "we don't know." Adding a creator god seems to explain everything but in fact explains nothing (*), while positing an entity that is more complex than the universe we were trying to explain. So we have two equally ineffective explanations, but one involves an extra entity which would seem to require even more explanation. Occam's Razor applies.

(*) The answer to any question about the universe becomes "that's how god wanted it."

Actually I am not even sure if an explanation is possible. An explanation is an account of how something is the consequence of something simpler, as the result of some kind of laws. I don't see how a god that is not subject to any laws can be explained. Or how anything can come into existence from a situation where no laws hold. But then, neither can I convceive of nothing existing at all. I question whether we are all just spouting hot air about these matters.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (466 days ago)

Well in your effort to refute the logic of my analogy, you now seem to be implying that it's non-analagous because Occam's razor doesn't seem to apply to craters. Firstly, I'm afraid that doesn't seem to damage the validity or accuracy of the analogy (which was merely to show the difference between a genuine lack of belief, and an unsupported negative belief). Can you explain why it's logically invalid? Secondly, (as you point out) Occam's razor is nothing close to a law, and in modern science is barely considered a guideline - so using it to fuel a speculation seems peculiar. It's a useful device in philosophy to encourage economical thinking, but when it comes to the real world the problems are obvious. (I'd imagine if you're aware of the razor, you will have read about its practical issues from better commentators than me). In short, as I've already said, it is entirely redundant in fields such as cosmology or quantum physics where it is obvious that often the simplest theories are usually the weakest - and heck, in an era where string theory is the leading framework of particle physics, it's evident that the universe is more complicated and pluralistic than we ever thought possible.

By the way, you never told me how one could incontrovertibly disprove an atheist, as you seem to think your type of atheism is scientific and evidence-based, and falsifiability is important to you.

And actually, hard atheists do have a partial and speculative explanation for the universe's origins - namely 'somehow, but without a god'. An agnostic doesn't need to make that speculation, nor discount any possibilities. The problem with Occam, again, is that it tries to compare complete explanations that have the same result. If we don't have complete explanations, it doesn't work. Saying the universe started 'somehow, but without a god' necessarily will involve far more assumptions than is explicit in the phrasing. In the same way, you can ask how does rain end up in the sky as clouds? Either 'the 4 stages of the water cycle', or 'something else mysterious not involving the sea'. On face value, the latter seems to be simpler, but actually when picked apart, it still requires assumptions or additional entities, and possibly more than the alternative. And either way, the linguistic simplicity of the hypothesis doesn't affect its truth.

All-in-all, it seems that there are enough drawbacks with the razor for it not to be a particularly potent reason to exclude something, especially something as complex and unknowable as this. It was never really devised with this sort of conundrum in mind, let alone to be a deciding factor which seems to be the way you are presenting it. I do however find it intriguing the ways you are using to justify your speculations. From an agnostic (maybe an ignostic even), yes, this is all hot-air, along with discussions about the nature of good and evil, justice, aesthetic theory, free will, etc. etc. Yet it seems a compelling human instinct to speculate about such matters, and to claim we are right. That's why in the absence of evidence, I try to be non-committal. "I don't know" is fine.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Well in your effort to refute the logic of my analogy, you now seem to be implying that it's non-analagous because Occam's razor doesn't seem to apply to craters. Firstly, I'm afraid that doesn't seem to damage the validity or accuracy of the analogy (which was merely to show the difference between a genuine lack of belief, and an unsupported negative belief). Can you explain why it's logically invalid? Secondly, (as you point out) Occam's razor is nothing close to a law, and in modern science is barely considered a guideline - so using it to fuel a speculation seems peculiar. It's a useful device in philosophy to encourage economical thinking, but when it comes to the real world the problems are obvious. (I'd imagine if you're aware of the razor, you will have read about its practical issues from better commentators than me). In short, as I've already said, it is entirely redundant in fields such as cosmology or quantum physics where it is obvious that often the simplest theories are usually the weakest - and heck, in an era where string theory is the leading framework of particle physics, it's evident that the universe is more complicated and pluralistic than we ever thought possible.

By the way, you never told me how one could incontrovertibly disprove an atheist, as you seem to think your type of atheism is scientific and evidence-based, and falsifiability is important to you.

And actually, hard atheists do have a partial and speculative explanation for the universe's origins - namely 'somehow, but without a god'. An agnostic doesn't need to make that speculation, nor discount any possibilities. The problem with Occam, again, is that it tries to compare complete explanations that have the same result. If we don't have complete explanations, it doesn't work. Saying the universe started 'somehow, but without a god' necessarily will involve far more assumptions than is explicit in the phrasing. In the same way, you can ask how does rain end up in the sky as clouds? Either 'the 4 stages of the water cycle', or 'something else mysterious not involving the sea'. On face value, the latter seems to be simpler, but actually when picked apart, it still requires assumptions or additional entities, and possibly more than the alternative. And either way, the linguistic simplicity of the hypothesis doesn't affect its truth.

All-in-all, it seems that there are enough drawbacks with the razor for it not to be a particularly potent reason to exclude something, especially something as complex and unknowable as this. It was never really devised with this sort of conundrum in mind, let alone to be a deciding factor which seems to be the way you are presenting it. I do however find it intriguing the ways you are using to justify your speculations. From an agnostic (maybe an ignostic even), yes, this is all hot-air, along with discussions about the nature of good and evil, justice, aesthetic theory, free will, etc. etc. Yet it seems a compelling human instinct to speculate about such matters, and to claim we are right. That's why in the absence of evidence, I try to be non-committal. "I don't know" is fine.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (465 days ago)

PA - The razor doesn't apply to craters. It applies to explanatory hypotheses. The craters example is not relevant because it doesn't meet this requirement. But it is OK as an example about belief and the lack thereof.

I am struggling to understand why I have to justify claiming that an explanation without a god is simpler than one with a god. I said previously that both explanations were essentially "We don't know" but it's not quite so simple. The god explanation is "god did everything but we can't explain god." The godless explanation given by eg Lawrence Krauss is more detailed (I have not studied it and probably wouldn't understand it), and specifies a small number of laws that would result in the universe. So the comparison would be between (1) a god that is more complex than the entire universe, that is unknowable in principle, and which has an unexplained origin and (2) a small number of laws that can be described mathematically, but which have an unexplained origin. To say both explanations are equally complex seems perverse. They are both incomplete, but #1 is more incomplete than the original question, while #2 is not.

Re disproving atheism - that is a good question. The short answer is I don't know. The problem is how to relate some aspect of this universe to imply the "existence" of a god which is not bound by any natural law. I put "existence" in quotes because otherwise I use that word to mean existence in this space-time-matter continuum, and yet gods manifestly don't exist in the ordinary way like tables and chairs. If they "exist" at all it is in some other realm which we don't have access to.

So, I turn the question around. If a god "exists" with god-like properties of super intelligence and powers etc and a deep personal knowledge of me, then that god should be able to convince me of its existence. If the god in question merely created this universe as a kind of god-school project and our universe is now gathering dust at the back of its toy cupboard, then we have a god whose "existence" is going to be impossible in practice to prove - as impossible as, say, an ant proving the existence of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

PA - The razor doesn't apply to craters. It applies to explanatory hypotheses. The craters example is not relevant because it doesn't meet this requirement. But it is OK as an example about belief and the lack thereof.

I am struggling to understand why I have to justify claiming that an explanation without a god is simpler than one with a god. I said previously that both explanations were essentially "We don't know" but it's not quite so simple. The god explanation is "god did everything but we can't explain god." The godless explanation given by eg Lawrence Krauss is more detailed (I have not studied it and probably wouldn't understand it), and specifies a small number of laws that would result in the universe. So the comparison would be between (1) a god that is more complex than the entire universe, that is unknowable in principle, and which has an unexplained origin and (2) a small number of laws that can be described mathematically, but which have an unexplained origin. To say both explanations are equally complex seems perverse. They are both incomplete, but #1 is more incomplete than the original question, while #2 is not.

Re disproving atheism - that is a good question. The short answer is I don't know. The problem is how to relate some aspect of this universe to imply the "existence" of a god which is not bound by any natural law. I put "existence" in quotes because otherwise I use that word to mean existence in this space-time-matter continuum, and yet gods manifestly don't exist in the ordinary way like tables and chairs. If they "exist" at all it is in some other realm which we don't have access to.

So, I turn the question around. If a god "exists" with god-like properties of super intelligence and powers etc and a deep personal knowledge of me, then that god should be able to convince me of its existence. If the god in question merely created this universe as a kind of god-school project and our universe is now gathering dust at the back of its toy cupboard, then we have a god whose "existence" is going to be impossible in practice to prove - as impossible as, say, an ant proving the existence of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (464 days ago)

The craters example was only to show that the logical and objective attitude is to believe neither position of a bivalence where there is no relevant evidence, rather than plumping for a speculation on either side. It shows that in cold predicate logic, a lack of belief should not entail a belief in the opposite situation, and an equal and impartial lack of belief for both possibilities is more akin to agnosticism than atheism, particularly hard / new atheism which is very affirmative.

Again, Occam's razor on its own seems a very flimsy reason to disbelieve in something, or none of us would care for string theory or countless other forms of cutting edge physics - I've never seen it depended on to justify an atheistic worldview. And is it applicable? I've read a little Lawrence Krauss, but would be fascinated to learn what 'small number of laws' he has described that adequately explain the universe - I really doubt that he's achieved that - let alone in a relatively simple way. Neither do I believe that an explanation of god is necessarily more complex than the universe itself. Although I don't believe metaphysical deities are within the scope of modern science, in my comment to Walter I detailed emerging theories that would describe for the first time plausible methodologies for something of that nature. 'Natural laws' now include quantum, and indeed 'other realms' are also emerging from quantum theory to which we do have a naive access. I also think that any set of mathematical theories capable of explaining the initial singularity are going to be by definition so incredibly complex (even by our current knowledge of quantum states), that speculating on a single supreme being is unlikely to be much more detailed. God is shorthand or even an alternative for a potentially infinite number of component theories, so deciding which is simpler is rather speculative in itself. For this reason, I really don't see how Occam's razor is any more relevant to theories of the universe than it is to moon craters.

It seems you've reverted to the classic atheist stance of trying to disprove a certain god - this time, one with "super intelligence and powers etc and a deep personal knowledge of me". I don't see why even this very particular type of god you disbelieve in should convince you of its existence, even if it is able. What if it doesn't care or need your belief? More importantly, I don't think that's strong enough for a robust atheistic stance - refuting a god with human characteristics or even any god described in organised religion isn't the same as refuting any possible god in any part of the universe.

However, I think we both agree that if there is a god, it's a god whose existence is impossible to prove or disprove. I think you're correct to (apparently) accept that atheism is also unfalsifiable or unverifiable and therefore is also unscientific. That's why it's all a matter of speculation (or 'hot air'), if one insists on taking a side. But honestly, it's not necessary to do that. It merely reflects your personal taste or perhaps your cultural preconceptions. I'm not here to tell anyone not to have atheistic speculations or theistic speculations, but encouraging people to accept them as nothing more than that is a start.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

The craters example was only to show that the logical and objective attitude is to believe neither position of a bivalence where there is no relevant evidence, rather than plumping for a speculation on either side. It shows that in cold predicate logic, a lack of belief should not entail a belief in the opposite situation, and an equal and impartial lack of belief for both possibilities is more akin to agnosticism than atheism, particularly hard / new atheism which is very affirmative.

Again, Occam's razor on its own seems a very flimsy reason to disbelieve in something, or none of us would care for string theory or countless other forms of cutting edge physics - I've never seen it depended on to justify an atheistic worldview. And is it applicable? I've read a little Lawrence Krauss, but would be fascinated to learn what 'small number of laws' he has described that adequately explain the universe - I really doubt that he's achieved that - let alone in a relatively simple way. Neither do I believe that an explanation of god is necessarily more complex than the universe itself. Although I don't believe metaphysical deities are within the scope of modern science, in my comment to Walter I detailed emerging theories that would describe for the first time plausible methodologies for something of that nature. 'Natural laws' now include quantum, and indeed 'other realms' are also emerging from quantum theory to which we do have a naive access. I also think that any set of mathematical theories capable of explaining the initial singularity are going to be by definition so incredibly complex (even by our current knowledge of quantum states), that speculating on a single supreme being is unlikely to be much more detailed. God is shorthand or even an alternative for a potentially infinite number of component theories, so deciding which is simpler is rather speculative in itself. For this reason, I really don't see how Occam's razor is any more relevant to theories of the universe than it is to moon craters.

It seems you've reverted to the classic atheist stance of trying to disprove a certain god - this time, one with "super intelligence and powers etc and a deep personal knowledge of me". I don't see why even this very particular type of god you disbelieve in should convince you of its existence, even if it is able. What if it doesn't care or need your belief? More importantly, I don't think that's strong enough for a robust atheistic stance - refuting a god with human characteristics or even any god described in organised religion isn't the same as refuting any possible god in any part of the universe.

However, I think we both agree that if there is a god, it's a god whose existence is impossible to prove or disprove. I think you're correct to (apparently) accept that atheism is also unfalsifiable or unverifiable and therefore is also unscientific. That's why it's all a matter of speculation (or 'hot air'), if one insists on taking a side. But honestly, it's not necessary to do that. It merely reflects your personal taste or perhaps your cultural preconceptions. I'm not here to tell anyone not to have atheistic speculations or theistic speculations, but encouraging people to accept them as nothing more than that is a start.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (464 days ago)

PA - The bottom line is that I don't have a belief in any gods, though I accept that they may "exist" in some way.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

PA - The bottom line is that I don't have a belief in any gods, though I accept that they may "exist" in some way.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (464 days ago)

I guess my question would be do you believe in a godless universe?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

I guess my question would be do you believe in a godless universe?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (464 days ago)

PA - I wish I could just say yes or no. The difficulty in answering this question is the word "belief," because there are many levels of belief. I try to avoid having unshakeable belief in anything, but to be open to new evidence or persuasion. I do have opinions and values, and I know these have changed over time (I am in my late life now), often as a result of seeing what happens in other parts of the world.

I am as sure as I can be that there are no gods in this matter-space-time continuum, though given that we can only account for 4% of the observable universe, that is less than 100% sure. Perhaps gods are the missing mass that keep the galaxies in place. It seems unlikely to me - it seems more likely that we will have another revolution in physics or cosmology that will overturn much of what we currently "believe."

As for beings in other realms, which by definition we can know nothing of, I cannot say. I am of the opinion that if there are any such beings, they are not interfering in our lives on planet Earth. They may be poking into other parts that are far away but they are not here saving one person from cancer and helping another to win the lottery.

In short, I do think we are in a godless universe, as nothing I have so far experienced or learned has suggested otherwise, and much has been consistent with that state of affairs.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

PA - I wish I could just say yes or no. The difficulty in answering this question is the word "belief," because there are many levels of belief. I try to avoid having unshakeable belief in anything, but to be open to new evidence or persuasion. I do have opinions and values, and I know these have changed over time (I am in my late life now), often as a result of seeing what happens in other parts of the world.

I am as sure as I can be that there are no gods in this matter-space-time continuum, though given that we can only account for 4% of the observable universe, that is less than 100% sure. Perhaps gods are the missing mass that keep the galaxies in place. It seems unlikely to me - it seems more likely that we will have another revolution in physics or cosmology that will overturn much of what we currently "believe."

As for beings in other realms, which by definition we can know nothing of, I cannot say. I am of the opinion that if there are any such beings, they are not interfering in our lives on planet Earth. They may be poking into other parts that are far away but they are not here saving one person from cancer and helping another to win the lottery.

In short, I do think we are in a godless universe, as nothing I have so far experienced or learned has suggested otherwise, and much has been consistent with that state of affairs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (464 days ago)

Interesting stuff. I think I actually agree with nearly everything you say, but it's odd that my conclusion is different. As you said, we can only account for 4% of the universe in terms of matter, and in terms of physical points we have observed so far, it's an infinitesimal fraction of that 4%. Added to that, there maybe multiple quantum dimensions, and quite possibly multiple universes too. So although nothing I have so far experienced on my doorstep has suggested a typical, traditional god within 'eyeshot' of me, I could never extrapolate that and say therefore I believe that the entire universe is godless. I lack a belief in both.

Anyway, I find your take on atheism refreshing and more common-sensical than most. It seems you are an implicit atheist. Too many these days haven't really thought about their belief set and yet still talk with incontrovertible confidence and hostility - "There is no god / god is made up", "all religion is bullshit", "religious believers are stupid", strikes me as the kind of naive emotional rhetoric touted by too many atheists - far from the simple 'lack of belief' that should characterise them - and I personally think New Atheism as a movement accounts for much of it, lending an air of respectability to simplistic anti-religious prejudice. As far as I'm concerned, once they stray into that territory (all too quickly), it becomes the same kind of divisive and antagonistic self-righteousness that we all hate about fundamentalist religion.

I hope you'll stick around on BoreMe, because despite its secular agenda this place is in dire need of a moderated and reflective stance on atheism.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Interesting stuff. I think I actually agree with nearly everything you say, but it's odd that my conclusion is different. As you said, we can only account for 4% of the universe in terms of matter, and in terms of physical points we have observed so far, it's an infinitesimal fraction of that 4%. Added to that, there maybe multiple quantum dimensions, and quite possibly multiple universes too. So although nothing I have so far experienced on my doorstep has suggested a typical, traditional god within 'eyeshot' of me, I could never extrapolate that and say therefore I believe that the entire universe is godless. I lack a belief in both.

Anyway, I find your take on atheism refreshing and more common-sensical than most. It seems you are an implicit atheist. Too many these days haven't really thought about their belief set and yet still talk with incontrovertible confidence and hostility - "There is no god / god is made up", "all religion is bullshit", "religious believers are stupid", strikes me as the kind of naive emotional rhetoric touted by too many atheists - far from the simple 'lack of belief' that should characterise them - and I personally think New Atheism as a movement accounts for much of it, lending an air of respectability to simplistic anti-religious prejudice. As far as I'm concerned, once they stray into that territory (all too quickly), it becomes the same kind of divisive and antagonistic self-righteousness that we all hate about fundamentalist religion.

I hope you'll stick around on BoreMe, because despite its secular agenda this place is in dire need of a moderated and reflective stance on atheism.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (464 days ago)
Latest comment:

It won't surprise you that I also agree with Pike. If you agree when he wrote "I am as sure as I can be that there are no gods in this matter-space-time continuum..." then rather than defending current religions, shouldn't you be calling them out for teaching god definitely exists to kids at brainwashable age?

I think that's the difference between new atheists and regular atheists. New atheists believe religion is a bad thing and should be called out. Regular atheists don't give a shit what anyone believes.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
Latest comment:

It won't surprise you that I also agree with Pike. If you agree when he wrote "I am as sure as I can be that there are no gods in this matter-space-time continuum..." then rather than defending current religions, shouldn't you be calling them out for teaching god definitely exists to kids at brainwashable age?

I think that's the difference between new atheists and regular atheists. New atheists believe religion is a bad thing and should be called out. Regular atheists don't give a shit what anyone believes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jesus (467 days ago)

No I didn't - but I'll ask my dad

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

No I didn't - but I'll ask my dad

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (467 days ago)

Hey Pike, some people think you are me. Sorry.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

Hey Pike, some people think you are me. Sorry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (467 days ago)

I hope you don't teach.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

I hope you don't teach.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pike (472 days ago)

ProudAgnostic - I don't think WalterEgo needs my help, but your long post above contains no content of note. Para1 is personal insult. Para2 is lengthy but I don't see what the point is. Para3 says scientists don't know everything and some of them believe in god and scientists don't know everything (again) - a long argument from ignorance. The rest is back to insult.

If a god existed and wanted us to know that he did, it would be trivially simple. Heck, Jehova reputedly revealed himself many times in the past, and lots of other gods did too. It's not a matter of principle that gods can't show up in person. So why leave all this so-called evidence lying around? God likes to play hide and seek? He likes to mess with our minds?

That is not the behaviour I would expect from a creator who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who seeks a personal relationship with me. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is a mistake for me to use my presumably god-given brain to try to understand the incomprehensible. But if so, the all-knowing god knows my weaknesses better than I do, and *still* fails to make contact in terms that I can cope with.

It is however the behaviour I would expect from a non-existent entity whose existence is being claimed by believers who are unable to let their beliefs go. All these people ever do is make excuses as to why their favourite god can't or won't do anything real. God's inability to regrow amputated limbs is the best example.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

ProudAgnostic - I don't think WalterEgo needs my help, but your long post above contains no content of note. Para1 is personal insult. Para2 is lengthy but I don't see what the point is. Para3 says scientists don't know everything and some of them believe in god and scientists don't know everything (again) - a long argument from ignorance. The rest is back to insult.

If a god existed and wanted us to know that he did, it would be trivially simple. Heck, Jehova reputedly revealed himself many times in the past, and lots of other gods did too. It's not a matter of principle that gods can't show up in person. So why leave all this so-called evidence lying around? God likes to play hide and seek? He likes to mess with our minds?

That is not the behaviour I would expect from a creator who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who seeks a personal relationship with me. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is a mistake for me to use my presumably god-given brain to try to understand the incomprehensible. But if so, the all-knowing god knows my weaknesses better than I do, and *still* fails to make contact in terms that I can cope with.

It is however the behaviour I would expect from a non-existent entity whose existence is being claimed by believers who are unable to let their beliefs go. All these people ever do is make excuses as to why their favourite god can't or won't do anything real. God's inability to regrow amputated limbs is the best example.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

Thanks for joining in. I think Walter would appreciate any help, sock-puppetry aside. I like the fact that you can overlook Walter's "wankmanship" quote yet find my calling him "predictable" insulting. Slightly mixed messages, but I'll be on my best behaviour in this comment, I promise.

I dread having to give commentaries on previous comments I've made but in this instance it appears necessary. One of his points (in summary) had been that the fact nothing worshipped god before humans came along is a sign that god is man-made. Paragraph 2 is a refutation of that, saying that whether something is worshipped could not possibly have any bearing on whether it exists, unless you're some strange philosophical idealist which he isn't. Sorry you didn't see that point; I guess I wasn't clear enough.

He also claimed that there was nothing that suggested the manipulation of a "non-spatial-omnipre sent-super-thingy", and asked for 'anything' that suggests otherwise. Paragraph 3 is a refutation of that point, and offers not just anything, but plenty of things in science that can be explained with reference to supreme beings, if one was so inclined, including things which are entirely contradictory to current scientific principles. As I said, it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective. I'm slightly disappointed that you've got Wiki-logic creeping in, but hey ho - we're on BoreMe after-all: No, it isn't an argument from ignorance - that would be saying 'We don't know, so therefore there IS a god'. My point is that 'We don't know, so therefore we don't know - but there's plenty of evidence for both if you're looking for it'. As you may have gathered, I'm agnostic.

You appear to be another brave atheist who is excellent at arguing against a particular type of god - maybe one that deliberately decides not to show up in person; one that is all-knowing and all-powerful and seeks a personal relationship with you; one that is comprehensible; and one that doesn't make contact in a way you'd notice. I mean, we just can't imagine the mindset of a omnipotent supreme being who makes a reason-based decision not to appear and do miracles, right? Theists would likely agree. And we all want a supreme being that's easy to understand, right? Well Pike, I don't want to rock any boats, but that sort of atheism seems to be a little feeble with a markedly short reach. I can agree with you that there are aspects of the god as described in organised religions that seem unconvincing. Of course. But does that mean that there can be no such thing as any type of deity of any description, anywhere in the universe? More than a little speculative, I'd say. It may mean that the descriptions are wrong, or that organised religion is generally barking up the wrong tree, but to extrapolate that into blanket incorrigible atheism, let alone this ugly militant evangelical atheism, strikes me as a foolish and hypocritical position.

And my final paragraph wasn't supposed to be insulting either - acknowledging someone's obvious bias isn't necessarily an insult. I was brought up an atheist, and was taught the same blind eye approach to critical thinking; Criticise everything you like, but not atheism, because atheism is true and scientific and rational because Science. Because Science. That wasn't good enough for me, and the more I've learned about science, theology, and religion as it is actually practised, the more I've seen atheism as just another smug speculation.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Thanks for joining in. I think Walter would appreciate any help, sock-puppetry aside. I like the fact that you can overlook Walter's "wankmanship" quote yet find my calling him "predictable" insulting. Slightly mixed messages, but I'll be on my best behaviour in this comment, I promise.

I dread having to give commentaries on previous comments I've made but in this instance it appears necessary. One of his points (in summary) had been that the fact nothing worshipped god before humans came along is a sign that god is man-made. Paragraph 2 is a refutation of that, saying that whether something is worshipped could not possibly have any bearing on whether it exists, unless you're some strange philosophical idealist which he isn't. Sorry you didn't see that point; I guess I wasn't clear enough.

He also claimed that there was nothing that suggested the manipulation of a "non-spatial-omnipre sent-super-thingy", and asked for 'anything' that suggests otherwise. Paragraph 3 is a refutation of that point, and offers not just anything, but plenty of things in science that can be explained with reference to supreme beings, if one was so inclined, including things which are entirely contradictory to current scientific principles. As I said, it boils down to what you accept as evidence or a sign, which of course is rather subjective. I'm slightly disappointed that you've got Wiki-logic creeping in, but hey ho - we're on BoreMe after-all: No, it isn't an argument from ignorance - that would be saying 'We don't know, so therefore there IS a god'. My point is that 'We don't know, so therefore we don't know - but there's plenty of evidence for both if you're looking for it'. As you may have gathered, I'm agnostic.

You appear to be another brave atheist who is excellent at arguing against a particular type of god - maybe one that deliberately decides not to show up in person; one that is all-knowing and all-powerful and seeks a personal relationship with you; one that is comprehensible; and one that doesn't make contact in a way you'd notice. I mean, we just can't imagine the mindset of a omnipotent supreme being who makes a reason-based decision not to appear and do miracles, right? Theists would likely agree. And we all want a supreme being that's easy to understand, right? Well Pike, I don't want to rock any boats, but that sort of atheism seems to be a little feeble with a markedly short reach. I can agree with you that there are aspects of the god as described in organised religions that seem unconvincing. Of course. But does that mean that there can be no such thing as any type of deity of any description, anywhere in the universe? More than a little speculative, I'd say. It may mean that the descriptions are wrong, or that organised religion is generally barking up the wrong tree, but to extrapolate that into blanket incorrigible atheism, let alone this ugly militant evangelical atheism, strikes me as a foolish and hypocritical position.

And my final paragraph wasn't supposed to be insulting either - acknowledging someone's obvious bias isn't necessarily an insult. I was brought up an atheist, and was taught the same blind eye approach to critical thinking; Criticise everything you like, but not atheism, because atheism is true and scientific and rational because Science. Because Science. That wasn't good enough for me, and the more I've learned about science, theology, and religion as it is actually practised, the more I've seen atheism as just another smug speculation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestthecocksucker (472 days ago)

Guest probably came first, he's rude like that.

Probably got cum all over his face while stairing at the stars.

Poor guy get him a towel.

Heres a recording of guest performing on a duck.

LINK

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

Guest probably came first, he's rude like that.

Probably got cum all over his face while stairing at the stars.

Poor guy get him a towel.

Heres a recording of guest performing on a duck.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (472 days ago)

PS; I forgot to add how tremendously offended I am that you think that the above comment was sloppy and shows my politically correct gene. Are we done?

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

PS; I forgot to add how tremendously offended I am that you think that the above comment was sloppy and shows my politically correct gene. Are we done?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (472 days ago)

Nope, not done yet. I'd like to examine your "...complex situation within science that could be explained with reference to a deity of some kind..." for just a moment. While I recognize that a deity can be referenced in an effort to explain anything from, say, the wind and waves to pound cake with a glass of milk, I'm still with Walter on the poetic "made up shit" part. I'm of the view that religion was likely conjured up in the fertile imagination of primitive man in an effort to explain the phenomena he observed around him. Since at least the enlightenment, more modern and sophisticated thinkers no longer need rely on such fanciful fables. Still, in the interest of brevity, I'm happy to share Ogden Nash's shortest poem in the world. It's called Fleas. "Adam Had'em".

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

Nope, not done yet. I'd like to examine your "...complex situation within science that could be explained with reference to a deity of some kind..." for just a moment. While I recognize that a deity can be referenced in an effort to explain anything from, say, the wind and waves to pound cake with a glass of milk, I'm still with Walter on the poetic "made up shit" part. I'm of the view that religion was likely conjured up in the fertile imagination of primitive man in an effort to explain the phenomena he observed around him. Since at least the enlightenment, more modern and sophisticated thinkers no longer need rely on such fanciful fables. Still, in the interest of brevity, I'm happy to share Ogden Nash's shortest poem in the world. It's called Fleas. "Adam Had'em".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (472 days ago)

Well it seems arbitrary as to what is deemed poetic, and unclear about what that signifies. Anyway, I agree with you about parts of religion - it is often explicit that it was made up by humans, albeit humans allegedly 'inspired by god' - yet that doesn't mean the idea of god that the religion attempt to describe has no basis in reality. It's so important to mark the difference between manmade organised religion, and the concept of any kind of deity in the first place. Robust atheism should be able to challenge both, yet frequently seems to challenge neither.

Your claim that the more sophisticated thinkers since the enlightenment have had no need for religion or theism is one of the canonical myths of atheism. Briefly, Newton believed in a god; Einstein believed in pantheism; Darwin himself mentioned 'the fingerprint of The Creator' in Origin of the Species; LeMaitre (BBT) was a Christian preacher; up to the modern age where scientists like WD Phillips and Peter Higgs are practising theists. Do these scientists not meet your definition of 'sophisticiated'?

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

Well it seems arbitrary as to what is deemed poetic, and unclear about what that signifies. Anyway, I agree with you about parts of religion - it is often explicit that it was made up by humans, albeit humans allegedly 'inspired by god' - yet that doesn't mean the idea of god that the religion attempt to describe has no basis in reality. It's so important to mark the difference between manmade organised religion, and the concept of any kind of deity in the first place. Robust atheism should be able to challenge both, yet frequently seems to challenge neither.

Your claim that the more sophisticated thinkers since the enlightenment have had no need for religion or theism is one of the canonical myths of atheism. Briefly, Newton believed in a god; Einstein believed in pantheism; Darwin himself mentioned 'the fingerprint of The Creator' in Origin of the Species; LeMaitre (BBT) was a Christian preacher; up to the modern age where scientists like WD Phillips and Peter Higgs are practising theists. Do these scientists not meet your definition of 'sophisticiated'?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestisacocksucker (470 days ago)

Just shut up you arrogant, know it all. I mean do you really have any friends at all that you havent put off?

Maybe some bum buddies.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Just shut up you arrogant, know it all. I mean do you really have any friends at all that you havent put off?

Maybe some bum buddies.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestisacocksucker (470 days ago)

Trying to start a conversation so he can lure someone into a never ending arguement where he'll harrass you and pull shit out of his ass to insult you, your country,your family, your friends and your dog.

Yep, guest is a cock sucker.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Trying to start a conversation so he can lure someone into a never ending arguement where he'll harrass you and pull shit out of his ass to insult you, your country,your family, your friends and your dog.

Yep, guest is a cock sucker.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (472 days ago)

That is self-contradictory.

Non-spatial = not relating to space.

Omnipresent = present everywhere at the same time.

Perhaps it's just another one of those religious mysteries?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

That is self-contradictory.

Non-spatial = not relating to space.

Omnipresent = present everywhere at the same time.

Perhaps it's just another one of those religious mysteries?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest-is-a-cock-suck (472 days ago)

Perhaps, or maybe your just an idiot.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

Perhaps, or maybe your just an idiot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (472 days ago)

My just an idiot what?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

My just an idiot what?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestthecocksucker (472 days ago)

You want to suck my cock right now ,is that what you mean?

Come and get it big guy, don't choke on it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

You want to suck my cock right now ,is that what you mean?

Come and get it big guy, don't choke on it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (472 days ago)

How did you know that? Damn your good.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

How did you know that? Damn your good.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestthecocksucker (472 days ago)

All the little faggots like you like my meat.

Thanks for the compliment, Im glad you like my cock in your ass.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

All the little faggots like you like my meat.

Thanks for the compliment, Im glad you like my cock in your ass.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guestthecocksucker (472 days ago)

Whats that you say, couldnt understand you cause of all that cum in your mouth.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Whats that you say, couldnt understand you cause of all that cum in your mouth.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (470 days ago)

gobble gobble gobble

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

gobble gobble gobble

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (470 days ago)

Gotta hand it to ya, guestthecocksucker. When it comes to baiting people, you are a master.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Gotta hand it to ya, guestthecocksucker. When it comes to baiting people, you are a master.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
New NASA images of Larsen C iceberg
New NASA images of Larsen C iceberg
Should we actively try to contact aliens?
Should we actively try to contact aliens?
ISRO, India's space program
ISRO, India's space program
Why doesn't the moon fall to Earth?
Why doesn't the moon fall to Earth?
Richard Branson on Elon Musk's life mission
Richard Branson on Elon Musk's life mission