Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 08-05-2003, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
All that has ever been presented is a story, never a god.

Well there's a metaphysical statement.

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin,

That's just silly, they don't do that at all.

Oh really? And do Boeing 747s just roll off the assembly line all by themselves too. Perhaps you can explain how the DNA code arose (no handwaving please), or how about echolocation in bats (which make a mockery of our best sonar equipment).

Philosoft · 08-05-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You are reading more into #4 than is there. There's nothing there about metaphysics. Read it again, carefully, and you'll see there is no hidden premise. It is simply a true statement.

Oh, have it your way.

Quote:

3. Strong atheism is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.

False. Strong atheism is the belief that no God exists. It entails that God cannot be used to explain creation, should the question of creation need explaining, but it does not entail that the question of creation is something that strong atheism must deal with.

Quote:

4. A belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation is a belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation.

As this premise is not about strong atheism, your proof fails thusly.

Philosoft · 08-05-2003, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
No, I'm not trying to impugn atheism as a philosophy, just explore its metaphysics. I'm afraid I do find atheism untenable, but that is not my point in this thread.

I didn't ask if you find atheism untenable. Let me remind you that your original stated purpose was to show that atheism entails religious beliefs. The fact that an atheist might have religious beliefs is of zero deductive value.

Charles Darwin · 08-05-2003, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Regarding #3:
False. Strong atheism is the belief that no God exists. It entails that God cannot be used to explain creation, should the question of creation need explaining, but it does not entail that the question of creation is something that strong atheism must deal with.

Right. This point has been made by many on this thread. It seems to be the best response. Of course you realize that questions such as these -- existence, consciousness, complexity, etc. -- are precisely what challenge non theistic explanations. So IOW, you, on the one hand, say you don't believe in God (presumably based on some evidential analysis), on the other hand, you stick your head in the sand when obvious and glaring problems are presented to you. So you have conveniently eliminated all possible problems with your belief -- you simply don't need to explain them.

Biff the unclean · 08-05-2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
All that has ever been presented is a story, never a god.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there's a metaphysical statement.
How is that the least bit metaphysical? Was there a god here and I missed him? I've been busy with a sick ape this week and haven't been on the board. Did a god show up while I was gone, 'cause all I see is you retelling a myth?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin,

That's just silly, they don't do that at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really? And I suppose Boeing 747s just roll off the assembly line all by themselves too. Perhaps you can explain how the DNA code arose (no handwaving please).

That's funny the last time I looked there was nothing metaphysical or supernatural about Boeing 747's at all. They are completely materialistic. They roll off the assembly line because people construct them, they are a human artifact. No one says "Let there be jet." No one blows on a pile of dust or takes a rib from another aircraft's fuselage and causes a jumbo jet to pop into existence. They, like everthing else, have no need of the supernatural. But I was wondering when you would get to the cheap christian apologetics.

Our DNA evolved from earlier compounds�or is that "handwaving" (what ever the hell that means)? Am I supposed to say, "Oooooh it's SUPERNATURAL, wooooooo'?
But I'm sure that you have never even considered what it would mean if there were a "supernatural". For one thing physics would be meaningless as there would no longer be laws to nature. You could toss Newton in the dumpster. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, unless something supernatural happens and then it doesn't."

Biff the unclean · 08-05-2003, 12:51 AM

you, on the one hand, say you don't believe in God (presumably based on some evidential analysis),
That's just it. There is no evidence to analysis

on the other hand, you stick your head in the sand when obvious and glaring problems are presented to you
When did any non-Theist stick their head in the sand? We are just too honest to pretend to know things that we do not. You on the other hand make up answers completely out of imagination�not a very productive activity because the answers are incorrect.

reprise · 08-05-2003, 01:38 AM

Dear OP

You got your doctorate in physics? Could you please tell us the subject of your thesis, and the nature of your initial degrees, because in this thread so far you have displayed less understanding of physics than I have and I make no claim whatsoever to being a physical scientist.

I do not believe that it is possible in this day and age to have a doctorate in any branch of physics and not be familiar with any of Hawking's theories - yet you display an absolute ignorance in respect of Hawking theory. I'm willing to grant the possibility that you really might have a physics degree of some kind - if so, then you will be able to explain to us why you disagree with Hawking's theories. You will be able to quote specific research which validates your assertions. Most of your questions don't even relate to the physical sciences, and if you really are a physicist then you would know that. Quite frankly, I don't think that you're a physicist's arsehole; I think you're just yanking chains.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of the scientific method - but then, perhaps in your particular universe "scientist" is spelt "T*R*O*L*L*".

Hawking physics (and I'm not saying that I totally agree with Hawking, I'm just trying to point out that there are extant hypotheses in respect of the particular question) does not follow the infinite regression model in respect of the BB. Hawking physics DOES attempt to explain what is on "the other side" of a singularity.

FWIW, my speciality is the behavioural sciences - widely regarded by the physical scientists as not being a "real" science. There is no scientific law which says that human behaviour must be internally consistent. If you want to talk behavioural theories, then fire away, but don't try to dress them up as "musts" unless you can quote the research which confirms and predicts those behaviours. I suspect that you cannot research behavioural science any better than you have researched physical science.

reprise · 08-05-2003, 01:45 AM

I know that I'm a newbie around here and am quite possibly crossing the line in respect of some unwritten rule but I get the feeling that the OP couldn't explain the concepts of null hypothesis and falsifiability if they jumped up and bit him on the arse. (regrettably, I'm convinced that the OP is a "he").

reprise · 08-05-2003, 01:59 AM

I'd like to say that I have yet to meet an atheist who cannot conceive of a phenomenon which they would regard as evidence supporting the existence of a deity. I don't claim to have met all atheists, but it seems to me that the vast majority of us hold a belief which is falsifiable. The same cannot be true of most theists - most theist cannot say "I would be convinced that the God in which I believe did not exist IF X occured".

My apologies to other members and moderators if I have expressed my viewpoint too strongly. Please let me know if that is that is the case and I will try to express my viewpoint more moderately in the future.

Doctor X · 08-05-2003, 02:50 AM

A great deal of verbage has been expended trying to make a lack of belief because of a lack of evidence equivalent to a belief because of a lack of evidence. In this way, one tries to undercut the lack of belief by rendering it "the same" as blind faith.

That is all.

It has not seemed to convince anyone.

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2003, 12:43 AM	#145
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Originally posted by Biff the unclean All that has ever been presented is a story, never a god. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well there's a metaphysical statement. How is that the least bit metaphysical? Was there a god here and I missed him? I've been busy with a sick ape this week and haven't been on the board. Did a god show up while I was gone, 'cause all I see is you retelling a myth? quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Biff the unclean Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin, That's just silly, they don't do that at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh really? And I suppose Boeing 747s just roll off the assembly line all by themselves too. Perhaps you can explain how the DNA code arose (no handwaving please). That's funny the last time I looked there was nothing metaphysical or supernatural about Boeing 747's at all. They are completely materialistic. They roll off the assembly line because people construct them, they are a human artifact. No one says "Let there be jet." No one blows on a pile of dust or takes a rib from another aircraft's fuselage and causes a jumbo jet to pop into existence. They, like everthing else, have no need of the supernatural. But I was wondering when you would get to the cheap christian apologetics. Our DNA evolved from earlier compounds�or is that "handwaving" (what ever the hell that means)? Am I supposed to say, "Oooooh it's SUPERNATURAL, wooooooo'? But I'm sure that you have never even considered what it would mean if there were a "supernatural". For one thing physics would be meaningless as there would no longer be laws to nature. You could toss Newton in the dumpster. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, unless something supernatural happens and then it doesn't."

08-05-2003, 12:51 AM	#146
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	you, on the one hand, say you don't believe in God (presumably based on some evidential analysis), That's just it. There is no evidence to analysis on the other hand, you stick your head in the sand when obvious and glaring problems are presented to you When did any non-Theist stick their head in the sand? We are just too honest to pretend to know things that we do not. You on the other hand make up answers completely out of imagination�not a very productive activity because the answers are incorrect.

08-05-2003, 01:38 AM	#147
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	Dear OP You got your doctorate in physics? Could you please tell us the subject of your thesis, and the nature of your initial degrees, because in this thread so far you have displayed less understanding of physics than I have and I make no claim whatsoever to being a physical scientist. I do not believe that it is possible in this day and age to have a doctorate in any branch of physics and not be familiar with any of Hawking's theories - yet you display an absolute ignorance in respect of Hawking theory. I'm willing to grant the possibility that you really might have a physics degree of some kind - if so, then you will be able to explain to us why you disagree with Hawking's theories. You will be able to quote specific research which validates your assertions. Most of your questions don't even relate to the physical sciences, and if you really are a physicist then you would know that. Quite frankly, I don't think that you're a physicist's arsehole; I think you're just yanking chains. For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of the scientific method - but then, perhaps in your particular universe "scientist" is spelt "TROLL*". Hawking physics (and I'm not saying that I totally agree with Hawking, I'm just trying to point out that there are extant hypotheses in respect of the particular question) does not follow the infinite regression model in respect of the BB. Hawking physics DOES attempt to explain what is on "the other side" of a singularity. FWIW, my speciality is the behavioural sciences - widely regarded by the physical scientists as not being a "real" science. There is no scientific law which says that human behaviour must be internally consistent. If you want to talk behavioural theories, then fire away, but don't try to dress them up as "musts" unless you can quote the research which confirms and predicts those behaviours. I suspect that you cannot research behavioural science any better than you have researched physical science.

08-05-2003, 01:45 AM	#148
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	I know that I'm a newbie around here and am quite possibly crossing the line in respect of some unwritten rule but I get the feeling that the OP couldn't explain the concepts of null hypothesis and falsifiability if they jumped up and bit him on the arse. (regrettably, I'm convinced that the OP is a "he").

08-05-2003, 01:59 AM	#149
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	I'd like to say that I have yet to meet an atheist who cannot conceive of a phenomenon which they would regard as evidence supporting the existence of a deity. I don't claim to have met all atheists, but it seems to me that the vast majority of us hold a belief which is falsifiable. The same cannot be true of most theists - most theist cannot say "I would be convinced that the God in which I believe did not exist IF X occured". My apologies to other members and moderators if I have expressed my viewpoint too strongly. Please let me know if that is that is the case and I will try to express my viewpoint more moderately in the future.

08-05-2003, 02:50 AM	#150
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	A great deal of verbage has been expended trying to make a lack of belief because of a lack of evidence equivalent to a belief because of a lack of evidence. In this way, one tries to undercut the lack of belief by rendering it "the same" as blind faith. That is all. It has not seemed to convince anyone. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.