lpetrich

I have this picture of Theophilus wondering why something happens and instantly saying "Goddidit". And repeating "Goddidit" over and over again in knee-jerk fashion. And not asking why it isn't due to HaShem or Allah or Zeus or Jupiter or Odin or Amon-Ra or Baal or Marduk or Ahura-Mazda or Brahma or Amaterasu or the Eternal Tao or Aristotle's Prime Mover or ...

However, the physical-law hypothesis has yielded some very successful hypotheses.

And although there could be a deity or deities behind the scenes directing the Universe while giving it the appearance of following physical laws, that seems to me to be Philip Gosse Omphalos territory.

And I wonder if Theophilus knows who Philip Gosse had been or what he had proposed in his magnum opus.

lpetrich

However, that ball could be manipulated behind the scenes by some deity who is careful to let the results resemble natural laws.

Sort of like believing that angels push the planets around, but are careful to make their pushing look like the result of Newton's Law of Gravity as modified by Einstein.

After a while, such hypotheses start to resemble Philip Gosse's Omphalos theory of created appearance.

Koyaanisqatsi

Great. More worthless games of semantics instead of point-by-point counter refutation.

This is the only fact here worth considering: a claim that nature is the result of a supernatural creator is a positive claim that requires compelling evidence to support.

Period.

If you have no compelling evidence to support this claim, then anything else you (or any theist) posts is pointless evasion from that single, ultimate question and therefore irrelevant.

Claiming that anyone else has any burden of proof whatsoever is pointless evasion from the issue and therefore irrelevant.

Period.

Provide compelling evidence to back up the claim or concede you believe that fairy tales and mythological creatures factually exist for no supportable, verifiable reason.

Period.

Bill

I will just chuck my $0.02 worth in here, as well as on Andrew's own board:

This topic has its own index page over on the Secular Web. Please see the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/miracles.html" target="_blank">Argument From Miracles</a> page.

For me, simple miracles, such as rapid and unaided healing and so forth, would not really be quite enough to force me to believe that some God had a hand in it. As others have pointed out, we have every reason to believe that many things happen which mankind does not yet understand, so in these instances, Clarke's Third Law would apply: Turning Clarke's Third Law around yields the observation that anything magical may well merely be a very advanced form of technology. There is no real distinction between magic and the miraculous, so merely producing a miracle could merely imply access to some sort of "sufficiently advanced technology."

To prove the existence of a supernatural deity, the required phenomena would necessarily need to go beyond the capabilities of technology. Rearranging the stars in the Milky Way to spell out the First Commandment in (lets say) the original Hebrew would be a good target for this sort of "above and beyond" activity. Such a thing goes so far beyond mere technology that it contradicts everything we know about science and nature. (For instance, everything we know about gravity and orbits would hold that it would be impossible to perform any such rearrangement from the standpoint of our current night sky into the proposed sky configuration).

I'm not saying that there is no lesser miracle that would convince me of the truth of some sort of supernatural existence, but it would certainly take some substantial contradiction of human knowledge of the laws of nature before I would change my position in this regard. And even then, such a proof would say nothing about the truth or falsity of any known human religious beliefs. (So, don't get your hopes up, you Christians. )

== Bill

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

Bill

Andrew:

When we had the same discussion over on your board (about the definition of what atheism is and about the question of whether or not atheism is a worldview), I pointed out to you that you couldn't get agreement from among any substantial number of atheists as to exactly what atheism is because there is no world organization of atheists to set forth a definition and make it stick. I also point out to you that there are several prominent Christian philosophers who disagree with your assertion that atheism is a worldview. Of course, you've attempted to finesse my points over there by picking and choosing from definitions you agree with.

Well, Andrew, word definitions are a matter of a popularity contest and sticking with accepted usages so as to be understood. When you come over here to this board, if you want to be understood, you had best stick to the brand of English that we speak over here, and in our brand of English, atheism means that we don't have any belief in any God or gods (the "lack of belief" definition), as a matter of local convention if for no better reason, and also, that atheism isn't a "worldview," because at least over here, a "worldview" consists of several key pieces above and beyond the mere ontological question about your particular version of the God thing.

Oh, and just for the record, the <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551345" target="_blank">Oxford Companion to Philosophy</a> has this to say about atheism: Frankly, I don't know many people who would agree with THAT definition of atheism.

And the phrase "world view" generally means something really broad and comprehensive, as opposed to being narrowly focused on one single aspect of any person's philosophy. The idea comes from the german word Weltanschauung, which is defined as: The <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=553866&secid=.-&hh=1" target="_blank">Oxford Companion to Philosophy</a> expands that thought to: For me, the key componant of any world-view has to be some substantial stance on the matter of Ethics. Without that, you don't get into the regulation of conduct, which is precisely the point at which most worldviews collide. Atheism implies nothing with respect to ethics (except, perhaps, that commandments alleged to be from non-existent Gods are of no force and effect except when reason also issues the same or a similar commandment). The negative nature of atheism prevents the formation of any sort of positive thoughts, and it is my position that a world-view must be built up on some sort of positive foundation.

=====

Over on your own board, Andrew, I advised you to obtain some additional training (perhaps as simple as just reading a good book on the subject) on Philosophy of Language. If you had followed my advice, you would (at least hopefully) understand that place that language holds in the process of communication, and the fact that as a symbological system, it is totally arbitrary and of no particular fixed nature. Thus, the people who are attempting to communicate can define the language symbols to be whatever pleases themselves (and, as I've mentioned before, this becomes a bit of a popularity contest).

I have no clue as to what your real purpose is here on this discussion board (or over on your own board, for that matter). You seem to be, on the one hand, extremely dogmatic and unwilling to even attempt to understand different points of view. On the other hand, you seem to be unwilling to be pinned down on other subjects related to your central area of interest.

All I can say is that if you hope to achieve any actual communication, you need to clear up those channels of communication by learning the basics of linguistics (Philosophy of Language, etc.) as I've suggested to you several times already. It will make you into a far better communicator, if for no other reason, understanding the arbitrary nature of language, it should (hopefully) teach you to adapt to the local customs.

== Bill

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

99Percent

theophilus: Well, of course it is - look up the meaning of the suffix "ism."

Well, of course it is - look up the meaning of the prefix "a-"...

More to the point, to assert or deny something assumes a system of knowledge sufficient to support the declaration.

You are confusing "assert" with "deny". "Assert" does in fact assume a system of knowledge. "Deny" assumes nothing. In this case it is up to the "asserter", namely the theist, to prove to the "denier", that, yes, "It", whatever the asserter assumes "it" is, actually is.

So, unless you're claiming to be just mumbling meaningless jibberish by your statements, they are the result of a belief system; not atheism but auto-theism.

This is too funny, sorry but I couldn't help myself with your phrase "auto-theism"....

agapeo: The sense that I am implying is according to your definition if it holds water. If atheism is simply a lack of belief or absense of belief, if you will, then a child is an atheist by birth since he/she has no beliefs.

Bingo.

But my simple mind fails to understand how you came about your understanding of what atheism is or is not if you didn't learn it from someone else.

Because you fail to understand that atheism is the natural default non-belief. (remember "a" before "theist"?)

Did the thought simply pop into your head one day?

No. Its the thought of belief in "god" that popped into your head. Atheism is the rejection of the belief in god(s) popping in, in the first place, that you find so mystifying...

If atheism "fits the bill" then you've accepted that "viewpoint."

I think Koy is too lazy to even answer this so I humbly take his place. So no, atheism is not even about "accepting" a viewpoint. Its about rejecting it.

Call it non-belief, lack of belief or duck soup if you like but it remains what you are.

Oh well, I believe I am not a female, I am not an alien, I am not a dog, I am not a bear, I am not a boot, I am not a tail, I am not an ass kisser, I am not a desk, I am not a martian, I am not a rug, I am not a hamster, I am not a cat, I am not a dog, I am not a... etc, etc, etc, so when do you stop defining me as a non whatever? See the pointedlessness of this last statement of yours?

And what you are is composed of all the information (knowledge) that you have been exposed to. You chose to "believe" or accept the reasoning of one over another.

Hmm, this sounds initially very enticing but on deeper thought I realize you are contradicting "belief" with "knowledge". Is the "information" that Koy has been "exposed" absorbed as "knowledge" or as "beliefs"? You better get your epistemology in order here first

In other words you believe that the reasons for not believing in the existence of God is more reasonable than believing in the existence of God.

Just like the reasons in not believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Tm) are more reasonable than in believing in the existence of the Invislble Pink Unicorn (Tm). And your point is?

If you don't "believe" me

Of course he won't believe you, after such ridiculous statements...

I suggest you read the Craig-Washington Debate: Does God Exist? in which Dr. Corey Washington (one of your fellow and renown atheist) presents his defence of atheism.

Who said anyone was defending atheism in the first place? Theist are the ones who should be in the defensive, the burden of proof lies on them.

One needs not defend a lack of belief.

Yep, you got it, man. Amen!

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Andrew:

You are confusing "atheism" with "metaphysical naturalism". Metaphysical naturalism is a worldview: atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Most atheists are metaphysical naturalists (and vice-versa), but the two terms are NOT synonomous.

For instance, a child who believes that toys are made in factories, distributed in toyshops and purchased by parents and relatives would have a worldview which explains the existence of toys. Whereas a child who simply stopped believing in Santa would be an aSantaist. It is entirely legitimate for an aSantaist to say "I don't know where presents come from, but I don't believe that a big fat guy can fit down our chimney".

agapeo

I'm feeling to lazy to respond to the other comments directed towards mine at this time. But this one . . . well, what the heck.

[Whereas a child who simply stopped believing in Santa would be an aSantaist. It is entirely legitimate for an aSantaist to say "I don't know where presents come from, but I don't believe that a big fat guy can fit down our chimney".]

So if you "don't BELIEVE that a big fat guy" . . .does that mean your an [a]fatguy?

You better think that one over or consult with those who understand that atheism is non belief. This sounds like you formed a belief that "fat guy" does not exist. A child doesn't just simply "stop" believing in santa. He's exposed to another viewpoint on santa and "believes" that viewpoint is more reasonable than the previous viewpoint was.

agapeo

Originally posted by 99Percent:

[Who said anyone was defending atheism in the first place? Theist are the ones who should be in the defensive, the burden of proof lies on them.]

So, um, why are you?

[me]I believe in god. [you]I don't. Why do you believe in god [me]because I do. why don't you believe in god. [you]because there is no evidence proving his existence. [me]Fine. End of discussion. Actually, the discussion should of been over after I said I believe in god and you said you don't. But usually that's not good enough. Why? Because someone wants to convince the other that their viewpoint is more reasonable than the other's. If I say I believe in god[s] the most consistent stance (IMO) from you'll viewpoint is to simply say: "Fine." End of discussion. Get the point.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Usually, yes. However, I recall a time when I had a "metaphysical naturalist" view of where toys come from, but still believed in Santa. He wasn't required as an explanation, but I wanted him to exist nonetheless.