Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Atheism 3.0
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 4:32pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Science tries to explain what we observe and create models that allow us to predict outcomes, be they casual (if i drop this, it will fall), quantifiable (the period of a planet's orbit squared is proportional to the cube of its orbit's semi-major axis) or probabilistic (there is a 98.8% chance that a pion-0 will decay into a photon).

If you're saying science can't address it at all, then you're also saying that it produces no results, and thus, has no influence on what we observe or are capable of observing. This creates a being that, like the invisible pink unicorn, does not matter, even if it exists.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 4:40pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Yes as a scientist he can ignore it, I suppose. However, he is not ignoring it. He is saying it doesn't exist.

A unicorn, for example, could be tested for (as far as I know). We have yet to discover a unicorn. But, suppose a divine being was not something that could be measured--from our perspective.

If it can't be measured, then it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. Therefore he is justified in stating that, by all accounts, it doesn't exist.

And by the way, he has never to my knowledge said that a god absolutely doesn't exist. He says that there is "probably" no god, or "almost certainly" no god, but never "there is absolutely no god."

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Suppose it is not matter or energy. Suppose it is something beyond our scientific comprehension. What then?

"Then" it is something that does not exist in any functional manner. If it or its effects cannot be detected, tested, or measured, then it does not exist.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I think, based on descriptions of unicorns, even those could be judged scientifically, but a divine being...perhaps not--perhaps by its very definition.

Yes. Because by definition, it does not exist.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Furthermore, science has its limits. In fact it is often limited to reproducibility.

Reproducibility is actually somewhat less important than predictability is. Science is useful because we are able to collate information and say "if A is the reason, then when we do B we should get C. If we don't get C, then the reason is not A." Reproducibility is important because it helps determine, in a controlled way, if the prediction was actually validated by experimentation and not just a fluke coincidence. But if you cannot reproduce a specific event, it is not magically outside the realm of science to study and use as a data point for furthering our understanding of the world.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 4:48pm Subject: Atheism 3.0

"Yes. Because by definition, it does not exist."

So you're saying that a divine being does not exist because we can't prove it exists? This was why I mentioned the pale blue dot. You at once may claim that we may be so insignificant compared to the ultimate grandeur of the universe or just a small result of chance that is inevitably repeatable and yet--because we can't prove something, it must not exist. This is somewhat hypocritical is it not?

I know I'm arguing about semantics here, but isn't that another example of an invalid argument? It's my understanding that in putting together a philosophical argument--semantics are rather critical.



 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 4:52pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 4:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
So you're saying that a divine being does not exist because we can't prove it exists? This was why I mentioned the pale blue dot. You at once may claim that we may be so insignificant compared to the ultimate grandeur of the universe or just a small result of chance that is inevitably repeatable and yet--because we can't prove something, it must not exist. This is somewhat hypocritical is it not?

No, because we're talking about functional definitions. Something with all the properties of something that does not exist, functionally does not exist.

Certainly there are plenty of things that do exist that we don't know about, or that don't exist now but may exist later, and when they become functionally significant their status will change. It's not saying that it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe -- that isn't something that can be declared by fiat. It's simply saying that it is functionally identical to something that does not exist, and therefore may as well be treated as something that does not exist.

This isn't hypocritical, it's rational.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I know I'm arguing about semantics here, but isn't that another example of an invalid argument? It's my understanding that in putting together a philosophical argument--semantics are rather critical.

This after a long exchange in which you tried to assert that the difference between the words "know" and "believe" was negligible to your argument. There's hypocritical for you.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 4:55pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
We're saying there is no reason to believe in the existence of a divine being. This is what Richard Dawkins has said. This is what I have said. This is what others here say. There is no reason to believe in it. There is no physical nor logical grounding to believe in it. There's simply no reason to believe in a god.

 

-----signature-----
"Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity."
Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10!
Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO
Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 5:08pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
I should probably point out Dawkins spectrum of theistic probability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Dawkins himself then says: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 5:11pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 5:12pm (1 edits total) Edited By: SithLordDarthRichie
Lord_Vivec posted:
We're saying there is no reason to believe in the existence of a divine being. This is what Richard Dawkins has said. This is what I have said. This is what others here say. There is no reason to believe in it. There is no physical nor logical grounding to believe in it. There's simply no reason to believe in a god.


Exactly. It hardly furthers my understanding of life to believe in a God.
Science can explain almost anything to me and show me the wonders of the Universe.

What can believing in a God give to me that I can't get already, other then blind obedience to a being on the offchance it exists and following an outdated and supressing religious text?

 

-----signature-----
Amor Numquam Moritur... rose
Winner of Best Male Poster & Best Double Act - FFUK Awards 2005
Mandalorian Defender in the Acolytes of Revan......for Honour & Glory!!
"All of nature is a battlefield"
raised_brow
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 5:30pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 5:34pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
DorkmanScott posted:
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
So you're saying that a divine being does not exist because we can't prove it exists? This was why I mentioned the pale blue dot. You at once may claim that we may be so insignificant compared to the ultimate grandeur of the universe or just a small result of chance that is inevitably repeatable and yet--because we can't prove something, it must not exist. This is somewhat hypocritical is it not?

No, because we're talking about functional definitions. Something with all the properties of something that does not exist, functionally does not exist.

Certainly there are plenty of things that do exist that we don't know about, or that don't exist now but may exist later, and when they become functionally significant their status will change. It's not saying that it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe -- that isn't something that can be declared by fiat. It's simply saying that it is functionally identical to something that does not exist, and therefore may as well be treated as something that does not exist.

This isn't hypocritical, it's rational.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I know I'm arguing about semantics here, but isn't that another example of an invalid argument? It's my understanding that in putting together a philosophical argument--semantics are rather critical.

This after a long exchange in which you tried to assert that the difference between the words "know" and "believe" was negligible to your argument. There's hypocritical for you.


confused

"Something with all the properties of something that does not exist, functionally does not exist."

"It's simply saying that it is functionally identical to something that does not exist, and therefore may as well be treated as something that does not exist."

According to what we can observe and test scientifically. You're placing an awful lot of faith in our species ability to understand are you not? It is a somewhat self-centered way of going about things if as you say--we are so...humbled by what we observe.

Your basis for what it means to exist is, in and of itself limited by our ability to observe/perceive what we consider to be the universe.

So yes, I mention semantics because Dawkins does not assert anything but what he says--he claims truth, perhaps without understanding what the word "truth" means. You are assuming he was thinking a certain way and yet, he claims it is true that processes of evolution were unguided because he along with everyone else cannot prove otherwise. Yet, he is then claiming that because our supposed insignificant species cannot determine something--it cannot be true. This makes no sense. It is rational of course, based on purely scientific means that are determined by our own limitations. And of course, I suppose we can only operate from our own limitations--otherwise they wouldn't be very limiting would they?

But he seems to offer no recognition of this when making such an absolute or otherwise bold claim. That's my point.

The Earth is flat because there is nothing we can currently observe that proves otherwise. Later, we learn that it is in fact round because we discover evidence for it.

Would anyone ever expect our species to reach such a pinnacle that we could prove the existence of a divine being without the assistance of said being if it existed? No, so therefore, it must not exist? Therefore it is true that such a being did not guide evolutionary processes?

I think it is much more likely that we could eventually prove or disprove the existence of a unicorn or fairy.

Vivec is actually more on par, I think.

One could more accurately assert that one can't prove or disprove the existence of an imaginary friend. However, that also disregards the numerous people who have claimed to witness things like the prophets, miracles, etc. Things that are to be dis-proven because they appear not to be reproducible or that human history is susceptible to our own error/misinterpretation of phenomenon, which science can now show...

EDIT: Note that I'm not intending to change someone's mind here or convert someone. That is by no means my intention. In fact, the intial point of this exchange was actually to discuss when if ever Richard Dawkins arguments are not logical. Perhaps, my argument is not valid with regard to the my claim that Dawkins is sometimes illogical--perhaps I need to concede on that ground.

So perhaps Dawkins always argues logically? Does anyone here mean to assert, based on LostOnHoth's initial question, that Dawkins has yet to offer an argument that is flawed?

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 5:38pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Except... Dawkins never said got CANNOT exist. See my last post.

And you can't DISPROVE fairies, either, if you create a nebulous enough concept.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 5:47pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
The Earth is flat because there is nothing we can currently observe that proves otherwise. Later, we learn that it is in fact round because we discover evidence for it.

Yes. This is how the scientific process works.

You have a theory that currently works. You find new evidence that contradicts said idea. You then either reformulate your theory to fit the new evidence or if you can't, you make a new theory.

 

-----signature-----
"Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity."
Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10!
Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO
Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 5:47pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 5:52pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Except... Dawkins never said got CANNOT exist. See my last post.

And you can't DISPROVE fairies, either, if you create a nebulous enough concept.


Yes laugh I suppose.

Although people did not commit martyrdom in the name of fairies as far as I know, nor did they do such things in the name of Billy, my imaginary friend.

It would seem that most are in agreement that such people at the very least, observed things that they could not understand.

And it is not argued that our species is limited, as far as I know.

I wonder if, the universe is so chaotic and that if there are multiple universes--could miraculous events also be considered inevitable and therefore not miraculous? Unicorns and fairies could most certainly exist within that framework--at some point and somewhere in the universe.

Is it likely? Well, yes if it's inevitable....

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 5:51pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:02pm (3 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
"Something with all the properties of something that does not exist, functionally does not exist."

"It's simply saying that it is functionally identical to something that does not exist, and therefore may as well be treated as something that does not exist."

According to what we can observe and test scientifically. You're placing an awful lot of faith in our species ability to understand are you not?

No, because that isn't the point. The point is that if we can't observe it and it does not appear to affect us then until that changes, it may as well not exist. And until that changes, there is no point in talking about it as though it exists because we not only can't ascertain that it does, but since we do not appear to interact with it in any meaningful way we also have no reason to assume it does. You appear to not understand this, but it is one of the fundamental principles of science.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Your basis for what it means to exist is, in and of itself limited by our ability to observe/perceive what we consider to be the universe.

Correct. Which is why I said functional existence instead of actual existence. Which you repeatedly ignored, despite your trumpeting of the importance of semantical accuracy.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
So yes, I mention semantics because Dawkins does not assert anything but what he says--he claims truth, perhaps without understanding what the word "truth" means. You are assuming he was thinking a certain way and yet, he claims it is true that processes of evolution were unguided because he along with everyone else cannot prove otherwise.

It's not just about proving otherwise -- there isn't the SLIGHTEST INDICATION otherwise, aside from that which is fabricated from whole cloth by the religious.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Yet, he is then claiming that because our supposed insignificant species cannot determine something--it cannot be true. This makes no sense.

And it's not what he's saying.

He's saying -- and I'm saying -- that if our species cannot determine something then it is irrational and irresponsible to assume that it is true when it comes to the way our species interacts with the universe. If something has all the trappings of something that is untrue then it is best treated as something that is untrue.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
It is rational of course, based on purely scientific means that are determined by our own limitations.

There you go.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
But he seems to offer no recognition of this when making such an absolute or otherwise bold claim. That's my point.

The "recognition" is that EVERYTHING HE SAYS is meant to be understood through this lens. He shouldn't need to say it before each sentence any more than I should inform you at the outset of every post that I intend to write in English.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
The Earth is flat because there is nothing we can currently observe that proves otherwise. Later, we learn that it is in fact round because we discover evidence for it.

You keep bringing this up, but there's also the converse: the Earth is round and we know this to be true. We have enough evidence that we can declare it true. The only way for it to fail to be round is if the definition of round were to change. So this example actually works against you.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Would anyone ever expect our species to reach such a pinnacle that we could prove the existence of a divine being without the assistance of said being if it existed? No, so therefore, it must not exist? Therefore it is true that such a being did not guide evolutionary processes?

If evolutionary processes can be accounted for without guidance, then there is no need for a divine being and we can carry on as if such a thing does not exist -- quite regardless of if one really does, frankly. If this being is so intent on hiding its existence by making itself look like it doesn't exist, then we may as well oblige it as its theoretical existence adds nothing to our understanding of said evolutionary processes.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
One could more accurately assert that one can't prove or disprove the existence of an imaginary friend. However, that also disregards the numerous people who have claimed to witness things like the prophets, miracles, etc. Things that are to be dis-proven because they appear not to be reproducible or that human history is susceptible to our own error/misinterpretation of phenomenon, which science can now show...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

So perhaps Dawkins always argues logically? Does anyone here mean to assert, based on LostOnHoth's initial question, that Dawkins has yet to offer an argument that is flawed?

You're trying to change the goal posts.

No one is saying that he is never illogical, just disagreeing with your characterization that he has a tendency to be illogical. You said that you find Dawkins' logic to be flawed as a blanket statement and you were asked to defend you assertion.

I would not say that he is always logical because no one is, but I would say that I find him to be logical with far greater frequency than not.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 5:53pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
If I feel like being annoying I'd point out that I'm not aware of the earth being flat being a serious idea anywhere in the remotely recent past, on the order of several hundred years.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 6:03pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:05pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

"If our species cannot determine something then it is irrational and irresponsible to assume that it is true when it comes to the way our species interacts with the universe."

If our species cannot find objections to something being possible does not equal If our species cannot determine something is true

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being physically possible that there are multiple universes.

There are multiple universes.

Again, semantics, in this case matter. He's not saying we predict there are multiple universes or that it is most likely based on what we know that there are multiple universes.

He's saying that because we can't disprove it, it is true.

I wonder if the universe is so chaotic and that if there are multiple universes--could miraculous events also be considered inevitable and therefore not miraculous? Unicorns and fairies could most certainly exist within that framework--at some point and somewhere in the universe.

Is it likely? Well, yes if it's inevitable....

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 6:07pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Oh, lets go further. With a suitable timescale (t approaching infinity), a life-size copy of the Eiffel Tower made entirely of chocolate WILL pop into existence.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, ASPNET0) 2.671