Saint John of The Cross 9-21-95

I on the other hand do not assert that god is "impossible" just
"so vanishingly unlikely as to be near enough to impossible, but
if you can show me *good* evidence then sure, i'll change my mind"

It is impossible to prove a negative.
The onus of proof instead rests on the believers

it's the Basic Russels Teapot argument.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Proof of absence (in this context) is impossible, but absence of
evidence *in either direction* doesn't imply that the odds are equal.

 

Since you are usually so pedantic about these things, can I just point
out that the position is quite logical, just not sensible?

 

I'm a rain god, like the truck driver in HHGTTG. Whenever I go on
holiday, it rains. The only MotoGP I was set up to watch live last year
was Abu Dhabi, in a nice dry desert Emirate, and what happened? Yup.

 

That's a good way to define it. I think I'll use that one.

Kev

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 07:48:28 GMT

I think it's really a dualist universe and those aren't gods, they are
devils.

Because every time someone moans about punctures and rain, some smug
bastard will pop up and say "never happens to me".

Clearly that one is beloved by a deity but that deity is really not
very powerful so only that one smug bastard ever gets helped.

The rest of us get the devils.

Zebee

 

Yes but you are asserting that without definite proof of non-existence.

True there is no known evidence in all the accumulated verified
knowledge of mankind and I'm sure it flies in the face of all you
believe to be true.

Are you aware of the 'we are all self aware simulations in a simulated
universe' hypothesis?

If this was true (and I'm not claiming that it is btw) then by
definition we would never (could never) find evidence to support that it
was true. The creator of such a simulation would be the 'god' of such a
universal simulation (although in practice simulating Earth and the near
environs would be enough).

Who would do such a thing? How about our distant descendants...

Do I believe this is true? No... but it has a non zero probability of
being true (albeit vanishingly small probability) because it isn't
actually impossible and many such non zero probability hypothesis can be
conceived.

Ergo, the chance of a 'god' (and I'm not using the term as a church goer
would) existing isn't zero either.

You can't easily prove a negative existence (which you've claimed to be
able to do).

I would argue all you've proved is that the possibility is
microscopically small.

Hence... Agnostic (chance of 'god' being existing greater than 0% but
less than 100%).


G-S

 

A hypothetical universal creator (however unlikely they may be).

That doesn't mean omnipresent, Omniscient or Omnipotent. That's just
something invented by a group of particular (mostly) christian religions.


G-S

 

Except that the very definition of an Atheist is someone who is CERTAIN
there is not god.


G-S

 

If you assume this universe is a similation then 14 billion years may be
at 1 billion to 1 ratio

That'd mean the simulation creator (the 'god') would have spent a year
on the project...

G-S

 

Now see... that's just rude...

You atheists are trying to steal us Agnostics definitions now!


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:25:58 +1000

Turtles turtles turtles all the way down.....


Zebee

 

The ancient Greeks gave us much, but nothing more deliciously subtle than
'hubris'. He may indeed never get a puncture and endlessly gloat about
it, but his little deity can't stop him getting a divorce. Or cancer.

 

He's not stupid, Yeebok, that's unfair.

 

Almost right.

An Agnostic (usual usage) claims it is impossible to know, usually with
the extension that the *Existence/Non-Existence of god(s)* is equally likely

An Atheist (as used in the strawman argument by some arguing from a
religious perspective) would claim that there is *definately* no god.
Note though that this position is taken by *very few* people who self-describe
as Atheists.

An Atheist (as used by almost all Atheists) would possibly be more accurately
described as an Agnostic Atheist - Knows that it is impossible to prove the
non-existance of *anything*, but also considers that on the weight of what
evidence there is *against* the claims made about most gods (e.g. we know what
causes thunder/lightning, it isn't "gods getting angry" it's static discharge
from clouds) that the existance of god(s), and particularly the interventionist,
theistic type of god(s) is at best extremely unlikely.

basically, the Agnostic Atheist makes a further judgement on the *likelihood* of
the existence of God(s).

 

I prefer turtles AND elephants


G-S

 

Hey!
Don't stop yet, youse guys.

I've still got half a bucket of popcorn here...

 

The definition of a 'universe' is different to the definition of the
'cosmic all'.

It isn't impossible (although it is very unlikely) that extra universal
beings exist.

If they are extra universal then the laws of 'science' that apply may
not be those of this particular universe, since the constants of science
are 'universal constants' only.

Oh... and it isn't only monotheists that have 'gods'


G-S

 

"God" = universal creator.

There are legitimate scientific theories that say that our universe is
Not the entire cosmic all. How about (for the sake of argument)
extra-universal.

I've been known to be wrong in what I believe

I'm sure it was mildly amusing at the time, that sounds like enough
reason to me!

'God' = creator of the universe, that doesn't have to = deity.

There is an extension of the hypothesis mentioned above suggesting that
if the universe we live in is a simulation then the most likely ones
running the simulation are the descendants of earth (for a variety of
stated reasons... google them if you're curious).

I'm not discounting the laws of physics but they are only valid in the
form they exist within the constraints of this particular universe.

There is good scientific reason to believe that the 'universal
constants' were 'frozen' at the value they are at the moment of the
creation of this universe.

If they were 'frozen' by the rapid expansion that happened early in the
universe then another universe would almost certainly have different
values and different physical laws.

Ergo the laws of physics as they are in our universe would not be
absolute across a multitude of universes.

You keep using the term deity. What do you define a god as? I've
normally seen 'god' defined as the creator of the universe.

I don't believe so. I am agnostic about the possibility of a universal
creator if you prefer that term. I am atheist about the possibility of
a christian god.

However I'd normally just imply that by saying "If a god does exist
(unlikely) the he certainly won't be anything like that imagined by the
organized religions.

Which includes the possibility of experimental or theoretical error.

People (scientists included) have said that various things were
scientifically impossible which were later proven to be possible.

Why do you assume a hypothetical universal creator (god) would be able
to alter the unidirectional nature of time? It doesn't seem necessary
(the ability to slow perceived time would be useful, but that's doable
with intense gravitational fields and/or velocity).

As for conservation of mass/energy I ask you is energy conserved upon
entering an event horizon?

Upon entering a singularity?

And is dark matter and/or dark energy subject to conservation of
mass/energy laws (hint there are certain observations that suggest
perhaps not).


G-S

 

Hell yeah!
It's the religious who invented the term and who use the term to label
the non-religious.
Everybody else just says "normal".

Against the term *Atheism* yes.
As explained in the previous post it's just a label to make people seem
outsiders or non-corformists.

No; neither would I buy the argument that Atheism was another type of
religion. (Did you *read* the post before you hit "reply"?).

I disagree.
Everybody is born "athiest" and everybody is "athiest" until they are
taught a belief.
Therefore what's called "atheism" is the absence or belief or more
correctly "nothing".

OK; *THIS* is what the term Atheism should be used for. An activity
toward negation or denial of a god or religion.
Actively deny God = Athiest.
Passive = Nothing.

 

That's a nice Ad Hominem you have there Gerry...


Oh and i'll reply to your other posts in a bit.