Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Muad'Dib · 03-08-2003, 09:08 PM

By the way, just to lay my cards on the table, I don't assert that mindless natural processes gave rise to the universe. I don't know what did. I have no objections to ideas that add information to what we can know about the beginning of the universe, but I object to giving my lack of knowledge a linguistically loaded name.

Just thought you might like to know where I'm coming from.

Zadok001 · 03-09-2003, 07:24 AM

Refractor:

First of all, just because something can't be seen by us doesn't mean it lacks definition of color. "Invisible" is not contradictory with "physical," it's contradictory with "Visible." Presumably, since the IPU is omnipotent, it CHOOSES to be invisible, and when it chooses to be visible, it chooses to appear as a pink unicorn. Hence, we refer to it as an "invisible pink unicorn," which seems to not be particularly difficult to understand.

Additionally, note that you're arguing about the NAME of the deity. Which really isn't important.

If it makes you feel better, think of the question as rephrased to:

"If the Pink Unicorn that lives on the far side of Pluto, is omnipotent and omniscient, and can be become invisible or intangible at will did exist, what would you predict that the evidence would be?"

Invader Tak · 03-09-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

I just find all this rather humorous, and sad, as I watch all the ignorant give their reasons while still getting absolutely nowhere.

Can I just say that I feel the same exact way when perusing various Theist boards (needless to say, I would say that about the theists).

But, if I posted that exact phrase on any of those boards, I would be banned faster than you can say "God bless you".

Jobar · 03-09-2003, 08:44 AM

Refractor-
We also have seen zero evidence of mindless natural processes causing complex universes to pop into existence out of nothing, yet this doesn't deter you and most atheist from believing it nonetheless. So it appears that you have some ideological double standards at work.

While we don't have a complete understanding of how the Big Bang came about, we *do* know, from quantum physics, that it's possible for particles to "pop into existence out of nothing". It happens all the time, in fact. And, since our understanding of this is not complete, neither is our belief in it. It's the most probable theory, not Holy Writ.

Secondly, the infamous claim that there is "no evidence for god" is somewhat empty in the fact that you (as well as most atheists) fail to define what this evidence should look like if a god did exist. If you are so certain that no such evidence for god exists, certainly you are quite aware of what the evidence *would* look like if it *did* exist, or else you wouldn't be so confident that you haven't already seen it.

I would think that evidence for any god who wanted to be known would be quite unmistakable and inarguable. As it happens, all the things we are told are evidence for god are thoroughly arguable, and most often- I might even say always- mistaken. And if you are arguing for a god who does *not* want to be known, then why should we try to?

So I ask you..... if a creator god did exist, what do you predict the evidence *would* be?

Well, I guess that depends on the god, doesn't it? If a creator god wanted to, he could cause the stars to spell out his name, or arrange the continents in perfect geometrical figures, or do something subtle like encode messages into the value of pi. I'm sure that any such evidence would be obvious when found; something which only godlike intelligence could cause.

Do you claim to see any such evidence in this universe?

Refractor · 03-09-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zadok001
Refractor:

First of all, just because something can't be seen by us doesn't mean it lacks definition of color. "Invisible" is not contradictory with "physical," it's contradictory with "Visible." Presumably, since the IPU is omnipotent, it CHOOSES to be invisible, and when it chooses to be visible, it chooses to appear as a pink unicorn. Hence, we refer to it as an "invisible pink unicorn," which seems to not be particularly difficult to understand.

First off, invisible is contradictory to ANIMAL. A unicorn is an animal, therefore, an invisible unicorn is a contradiction in terms. You define an IPU (which is a concept you are fallaciously advancing considering you don't actually believe in it) as an omnipotent being that reveals itself as a pink, one-horned animal. You are simply taking the concept of god and disguising it in rhetorical terms. Your argument does not help or harm the general idea that some form of creator god could exist.

Quote:

Additionally, note that you're arguing about the NAME of the deity. Which really isn't important.

I am? Please quote where I said anything about the "NAME" of any specific god. You won't find it. So far, you are the only one who has advanced a specific concept of god (IPU), and the fact that you don't actually believe in the concept proves that your tactic is nothing but a rhetorical cherade.

Refractor

Jobar · 03-09-2003, 11:22 AM

Refractor, we use the intentionally self-contradictory properties of the IPU as a sort of demo for the irrational properties of any god for which a description is attempted. It's not just a rhetorical trick, and it's not just a joke. (Though it can be both, admittedly.)

It has been my experience that no two theists who come to these boards have exactly the same conception of god(s). Before we can refute whatever your own concept is, we first need you to tell us what you believe in! If you wish to discuss your god, you must first try to define what you mean by the word. If this requirement makes you unhappy, I suggest you examine your own beliefs and find out just why this is so.

And, if you can offer us a novel and self-consistent concept of god, believe it or not, some of us will thank you. I know *I* will; it would make my job here far less boring and repetitious.

Muad'Dib · 03-09-2003, 11:31 AM

Hi Refractor,

I'm still trying to understand where your question is coming from.

If I were to say, "The universe cannot have created itself, therefore a xyzzy plugh must have created it," is this different from your claim? Why or why not? Or are you even making a claim at this point?

I have trouble going from A to B, where A is "I don't know what caused the universe" and B is "A creator god caused the universe," because "creator god" hasn't been described at this point. I have an idea of what it might mean to you, but the term has a lot of historical and linguistic baggage that I want to inspect before I'm willing to bring them into the discussion. For all I know you're secretly trying to smuggle in the Hindu idea of Brahma, and we'll suddenly jump from discussing an arguable but possible empirical cause of the universe to debating reincarnation, all because of confusion over the term "creator god."

I also have trouble going from "I don't know what caused the universe" to "A xyzzy plugh caused the universe" because what the heck is a xyzzy plugh anyway? It doesn't really say anything at all. To my mind the statements "A creator god caused the universe" and "A xyzzy plugh caused the universe" are both unacceptable at this point because one has too many possible and mutually exclusive meanings and the other has no meaning at all.

Psycho Economist · 03-09-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Refractor, we use the intentionally self-contradictory properties of the IPU as a sort of demo for the irrational properties of any god for which a description is attempted. It's not just a rhetorical trick, and it's not just a joke. (Though it can be both, admittedly.)

One more thing about IPU before PerhapsItsTruth gets back from church:

IPU is meant to disarm two specific arguments:
1. A deity must exists as an un-caused first cause for the Universe.
2. Deities exist, but either A) leave no direct evidence of their presence or B) are capable of picking and chosing to whom they reveal themsevles.

Which fall under the general class of "Why do you let God 'transcend' logic, when you clearly wouldn't let something in which you don't believe off the hook as easily?"

Refractor · 03-09-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
While we don't have a complete understanding of how the Big Bang came about, we *do* know, from quantum physics, that it's possible for particles to "pop into existence out of nothing". It happens all the time, in fact. And, since our understanding of this is not complete, neither is our belief in it. It's the most probable theory, not Holy Writ.

It is quite a stetch from saying something is "possible" to saying its "probable". There is no statistical data that confirms a correlation between particle physics and the origin of the universe. There is no evidence to make this connection between the two because the actual state of the universe at it's origin is decisively unknown.....so we have no way of knowing whether or not the behavior of virtual particles have ANYTHING to do with the origin of the universe. So while I respect your opinion, I submit that it is based decisively on speculation, and not "probability" as you claim.

Conversely, based on our observation of physics, we see a plethora of data confirming that for any given effect, there was most likely a cause. So my claim that the origin of universe was caused is far more supported by statistical probability than your claim that it was uncaused.

Quote:

I would think that evidence for any god who wanted to be known would be quite unmistakable and inarguable. As it happens, all the things we are told are evidence for god are thoroughly arguable, and most often- I might even say always- mistaken. And if you are arguing for a god who does *not* want to be known, then why should we try to?

As I will demonstrate below, there is no such thing as "inarguable" evidence. If someone is truly dead set on being skeptical, they will ALWAYS find a way to argue or doubt.

Quote:

Well, I guess that depends on the god, doesn't it? If a creator god wanted to, he could cause the stars to spell out his name,

The stars are nothing but dots from our perspective. To draw a name by connected the dots would be meaningless because:

1) The name would not necessarily be that of a god. It could be a name of an alien civilization, or written by aliens who possess advanced technology that enables them to align stars.

2) The name would not appear the same way from other vantage points in the galaxy, thus, the name's form would be mutable and subjective. So the fact that it appears as a name from earth could be the result of pure chance.

3) As with all "connect the dots game", someone else could draw a different name, or even draw a picture of a sail boat using the same dots.

So this idea would fail to represent "inarguable" evidence for god.

Quote:

or arrange the continents in perfect geometrical figures,

That would not be proof of a god because there could be higher forms of alien life that possess advanced technologies that enables them to form artifical land masses out of water. Even humans can already make artifical lakes, ponds, canals, rivers, hills, etc. So this also would fail to be "inarguable" evidence for a god.

Quote:

or do something subtle like encode messages into the value of pi.

This idea depends largely on what the message is. All messages are subject to interpretation, and the interpretations can be as varied as the number of interpreters. So this idea is too vaguely described to be considered "inarguable" evidence for a god.

Quote:

I'm sure that any such evidence would be obvious when found; something which only godlike intelligence could cause.
Do you claim to see any such evidence in this universe?

Obviously I have seen such evidence or I wouldn't be a theist.

You asked me to give my definition of god in a subsequent post, so I will give it. I define god as an intelligent, mindful, supernatural being that was the designing cause of the natural universe and of all life on earth.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in that definition of god that is self-contradictory.

Refractor

Psycho Economist · 03-09-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
To my knowledge, there is nothing in that definition of god that is self-contradictory.

That he created the universe.
That he exists in fact, and is supernatural.
That he is or possesses a disembodied consciousness.
That his opinions establish right and wrong in fact. (Not on your list, but widely believed.)

Should I keep going?

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

03-08-2003, 09:08 PM	#61
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	By the way, just to lay my cards on the table, I don't assert that mindless natural processes gave rise to the universe. I don't know what did. I have no objections to ideas that add information to what we can know about the beginning of the universe, but I object to giving my lack of knowledge a linguistically loaded name. Just thought you might like to know where I'm coming from.

03-09-2003, 07:24 AM	#62
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Refractor: First of all, just because something can't be seen by us doesn't mean it lacks definition of color. "Invisible" is not contradictory with "physical," it's contradictory with "Visible." Presumably, since the IPU is omnipotent, it CHOOSES to be invisible, and when it chooses to be visible, it chooses to appear as a pink unicorn. Hence, we refer to it as an "invisible pink unicorn," which seems to not be particularly difficult to understand. Additionally, note that you're arguing about the NAME of the deity. Which really isn't important. If it makes you feel better, think of the question as rephrased to: "If the Pink Unicorn that lives on the far side of Pluto, is omnipotent and omniscient, and can be become invisible or intangible at will did exist, what would you predict that the evidence would be?"

03-09-2003, 08:44 AM	#64
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Refractor- We also have seen zero evidence of mindless natural processes causing complex universes to pop into existence out of nothing, yet this doesn't deter you and most atheist from believing it nonetheless. So it appears that you have some ideological double standards at work. While we don't have a complete understanding of how the Big Bang came about, we do know, from quantum physics, that it's possible for particles to "pop into existence out of nothing". It happens all the time, in fact. And, since our understanding of this is not complete, neither is our belief in it. It's the most probable theory, not Holy Writ. Secondly, the infamous claim that there is "no evidence for god" is somewhat empty in the fact that you (as well as most atheists) fail to define what this evidence should look like if a god did exist. If you are so certain that no such evidence for god exists, certainly you are quite aware of what the evidence would look like if it did exist, or else you wouldn't be so confident that you haven't already seen it. I would think that evidence for any god who wanted to be known would be quite unmistakable and inarguable. As it happens, all the things we are told are evidence for god are thoroughly arguable, and most often- I might even say always- mistaken. And if you are arguing for a god who does not want to be known, then why should we try to? *So I ask you..... if a creator god did exist, what do you predict the evidence would* be?** Well, I guess that depends on the god, doesn't it? If a creator god wanted to, he could cause the stars to spell out his name, or arrange the continents in perfect geometrical figures, or do something subtle like encode messages into the value of pi. I'm sure that any such evidence would be obvious when found; something which only godlike intelligence could cause. Do you claim to see any such evidence in this universe?

03-09-2003, 11:22 AM	#66
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Refractor, we use the intentionally self-contradictory properties of the IPU as a sort of demo for the irrational properties of any god for which a description is attempted. It's not just a rhetorical trick, and it's not just a joke. (Though it can be both, admittedly.) It has been my experience that no two theists who come to these boards have exactly the same conception of god(s). Before we can refute whatever your own concept is, we first need you to tell us what you believe in! If you wish to discuss your god, you must first try to define what you mean by the word. If this requirement makes you unhappy, I suggest you examine your own beliefs and find out just why this is so. And, if you can offer us a novel and self-consistent concept of god, believe it or not, some of us will thank you. I know I will; it would make my job here far less boring and repetitious.

03-09-2003, 11:31 AM	#67
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	Hi Refractor, I'm still trying to understand where your question is coming from. If I were to say, "The universe cannot have created itself, therefore a xyzzy plugh must have created it," is this different from your claim? Why or why not? Or are you even making a claim at this point? I have trouble going from A to B, where A is "I don't know what caused the universe" and B is "A creator god caused the universe," because "creator god" hasn't been described at this point. I have an idea of what it might mean to you, but the term has a lot of historical and linguistic baggage that I want to inspect before I'm willing to bring them into the discussion. For all I know you're secretly trying to smuggle in the Hindu idea of Brahma, and we'll suddenly jump from discussing an arguable but possible empirical cause of the universe to debating reincarnation, all because of confusion over the term "creator god." I also have trouble going from "I don't know what caused the universe" to "A xyzzy plugh caused the universe" because what the heck is a xyzzy plugh anyway? It doesn't really say anything at all. To my mind the statements "A creator god caused the universe" and "A xyzzy plugh caused the universe" are both unacceptable at this point because one has too many possible and mutually exclusive meanings and the other has no meaning at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.