haverbob

Glad to see a vet join in. In fact, you seem to be the ONLY vet that responded to my last 2 threads. I think the other vets don't particularly care for my questions.
Hmmmm... I think an integral part of any explanation is an explanation of where that thing came from (origin). Two needs one if it is to be fully and properly explained.
You seem to be defending science. It really wasn't an attack on science although I would have to say that science always seems to be digging for an origin or cause of a certain event or object or circumstance. This is the common mehthodology of science as you mentioned and it seems to be the default one for a good reason. Bottom line is that you seem to subscribe to the "rabbit out of the hat" concept rather than the "infinite origin" concept based on some of the things you said.

I'll try to explain better since you mentioned that you weren't clear about what I mean by "rabbit" and "infinite origin"

Rabbit out of that hat simply means that something can appear from nowhere. Appear out of thin air with no origin or cause and therefore no suitable explanation. Matter can appear with no origin or cause. And as I mentioned in a past post, if one says that matter can appear from anti-matter, then anti-matter becomes the origin or cause for that matter or maybe they both flip flop and they both actually share a more fundamental origin or cause and then what is the origin or cause of that cause.......

Infinite origin acknowledges that EVERYTHING must have a cause and therefore infinite origin is the only suitable answer to this never ending hole (although it has been admitted that this is not a suitable answer as well). Just keep going down the chain, two comes from two ones....the big bang comes from some forces....and those forces come from blank and blank comes from...... If you try it, you will go on forever. No way out of it unless you want to choose the rabbit out of a hat. You can if you would like but I just don't see why that's supposed to be so much more plausible than the concept of God, that's all.
Well this is kind of a word game but I'll play along. Nothing means the absence of ANYTHING or EVERYTHING. So think of ANYTHING that you want to and you will see that it can't be included in "nothing". Once it is, it becomes "something" maybe "anything" you want it to be.

Enjoyed your post. I'm gunna' go suck down some Mai Tias at my forvorite Chinese dive bar. I'll be back

haverbob

I think you are starting to reach a little bit here. I'll make it simple. I still don't see any more justification for atheism than I do for theism (and not the common, idiot theism, I mean the essence of theism). I think atheist should more often say "I don't know whether there is a God, maybe there is, maybe there isn't" instead of saying "there is no God" as we both know that many do, that's all. It seems like you have already said you don't know, so maybe I have no beef with you anymore. Just seemed to take a while to get there.

Taamalus

Butting in.

I am a theist, based on a technicality which is that I disagree with Big Bang and Abiogenesis. From this perspective, I say, there is a god or some entity. I do not define it since I can not prove its existence. (Please don’t confuse this with ID) From how I understand life my nose tells me that it did not come about by itself.

At the same time, the lack of belief in a god is a logical conclusion. His/her problem is to explain how life came about. Not being able to explain life still leaves the lack of prove of a god. I think an atheist has a clear logical reason to be an atheist. I as theist do not. As I said I virtually go by my nose.

Clutch

bob, that it seems like a word game from the perspective of pre-theoretic intuitions was exactly my point -- I was giving an example of the sort of reply that might turn out to be scientifically well-founded, but which seems very strange by the lights of homely sayings.

By comparison, someone might once have said "Two events either happen at the same time, or at different times!", thinking this to be as obvious and straightforward a truth as could be uttered. And yet, lo and behold, theory-building and empirical work and conceptual revolutions happen -- so that now the appropriate response would be, "It depends what you mean by 'same time.'"

Specifics:

* I don't hold any "rabbit from a hat" view. I don't know what explains the universe's coming into existence, because our best current theories don't tell us.

* You don't give any argument against the "infinite origins" view, beyond saying you don't find it plausible. Empirically, of course, the evidence is strong for an initial event for the universe; but there is nothing implausible apriori about an infinite past.

* I reject the option of pseudo-explaining the currently unexplained in terms of the overtly inexplicable. Re-labelling the currently unknown with a stamp that reads "God musta dunnit" is just a fancified way of saying "Currently unknown".

haverbob

Enough said there. I'm not sure how I would disagee with that. Study the point of this thread (although you may already get it). Atheists have no better answers than theists and yet they like to make fun of the fairy tales of the existence of God. But "their" fairy tales consist of "infinite origin", or the "tricks cereal rabbit" can be pulled out of a magicians hat (no origin, or things appearing out of thin air).
So you must be "Tucan Sam" (I love the "tricks cereal rabbit" as much as I love "Froot Loops"). Just kidding, you gave a reasonable response.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. I just wish that an atheist would say "I don't know if there's a God or not, maybe there is or maybe there isn't". But to have them utter the magic words "maybe there is" is like trying to get castor oil down a kid's throat for some reason. There are some deep seeded animosities towards this concept and "maybe" I know why. Because everybody explained God to them in a way that made it look like Santa Claus with a whip. And alot of times they get whipped by life and also find that often there is coal in their stockings. So who could blame them??? I don't. Seems like you don't either. I'm just merely saying that they don't make as much sense as they would like to pretend either, just like theists don't. I'm not here to make a definitive point, because I can't, and I know that. I'm just saying "keep the concept open" as you seem to have found a way to do so.

fishbulb

Hmm... perhaps you're right about that. The "you" was directed to haverbob and the particular conception he supplied for "god," though it's a common enough one. If god is inexplicable, then it really is just a less-honest and more fanciful surrogate for "I don't know." So perhaps the final quip was uncalled for, since it didn't refer to him specifically.

Sorry about that, haverbob.

fishbulb

In my estimation, the vast majority of atheists here, and probably in general, would either agree that there is no way to know whether, in fact, there is or isn't a god, or else argue that no meaningful definition of "god" has ever been presented to them that they would be able to evaluate in any sort of reasonable or coherent way. I think that you are attributing to the majority a belief held by only a minority: that there positively exists no such thing as god. I would expect that most atheists here would agree that you can't positively prove something doesn't exist, but that the lack of positive evidence to corroborate a thing's existence does suggest that it is more likely a figment of someone's imagination than it is a real entity.

haverbob

Well when you "find" it, drop me a dime and please explain it to me clearly. Yes, "might" turn out to be scientifically well founded, and maybe not. I'm going to sneakely copy and paste that line on to a theist's post as well and let's see if anybody can tell the difference. They like to say that someday God will be "well founded" as well. They wish, just like you do.
Well normally one would say "at the same f__ing time" What else?? Two people can have theories at the same time. Technically speaking, 2 bolts of lightning can strike at the same time in different parts of the world. Are you going in to the concept of whether time exists or not?? Have I taken you this far?? If so, good, maybe we'll have a pm about this.
Well. like I've always said. I respect your honesty and your ability to look in the mirror and study your own theories as well.
I'm not giving any argument against or for "infinite oirigin". I was just saying that when properly pushed or challenged, it is every bit as speculative as the arguments that theists make (at least sane theists, not the Santa Claus with a whip theists)
Yeah, I agree, see above. In fact, I explained to you what I am doing in a pm and you still think I'm trying to prove something. here. Maybe there isn't a God, but you're not going to prove it and neither am I (if I chose to, and I have chosen to in the past). I just never hear those painful words of "maybe there is a God" from the atheists and I know that's going to piss off all the atheists in here. Oh well. You, I don't care about because I'll bet you like it when someone pisses you off, but there's alot of atheists and theists that may feel otherwise

Clutch

Whoa, I say... whoaaaa there!

No bob, I'm not questioning the existence of time. I'm alluding to one of the major ways our thinking about time and space changed with the advent of relativity theory -- namely, that there is no coherent notion of absolute simultaneity. I thought this would be common knowledge.

Hence it is no longer a simple or obvious unqualified truth that for any two events they either occur at the same time or they do not -- even though this would at one time have seemed as pleasantly absolute as "Nothing comes from nothing".

And my speculation about the fate of the latter dictum is far from wild or dreamy, as you seem to think. Fact is, the notion of a "thing" has very little of the scientific vigour it might once have had; at the most basic levels of physical analysis current known to us, even properties like actuality are replaced with subjunctive conditionals and probability. Are tendencies-to-be-measurable things? Jeez, our common-sense usage of these words is suddenly not much help. The messy facts can quite properly make us give up comfortable folk wisdom; hence I recommend caution in arguing about what science must do, what the only logically possible choices are, and so forth.

As for the painful admission that there might be a god: all I need is a robust definition. I can no more admit the possibility of gods than I can admit the possibility that snarfs podinkle -- not without knowing what snarfs are supposed to be, and what their podinkling would involve. Clearly define a god for me, and I'll tell you whether I think it's possible there is one!

ComestibleVenom

Bob,
Maybe there is a god, but I'll be damned if there is a god.

The reason I say "God does not exist" unequivocally is not because I rule out the possibility of an intentional being existing before the first few hundred million years of the universe, but because God is the very worst sort of theory there is. It's behind tooth-fairy stories, behind Santa-clause theories, and behind crackpot 'zero point' energy schemes.

If there is any sense in which we can meaningfully say something does not exist, it's god.