| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 03:42:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1132338636.118914.142300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Del wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
But this doesn't look like at all like you, moron, it has a competely
different email address. If it were a deliberate forgery, wouldn't the
forger have at least tried to make it look like the same emai l address
somehow, maybe posted from one of those anonymous resender thingamajigs
or something? You know he would.
Not if the forger was... well, stupid.
LOL! You mean like someone using the excuse "You think
you are the only one in the world with the nickname Richo?"
What a dope. One of the staples of comedy is the dumb guy
who thinks he is smart. Watching Simple Septic the Secret
Theist is like watching a reality sit-com, but without
commercial interruptions.
Well, you've gotta remember -- we haven't proven that there's not
another guy named Richo posting to this thread. Therefore, it must be true.
You mean ...
Whatever he means, one can be absolutely certain it is not what Simple
Septic the Secret Theist misrepresents it to be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 12:46:08 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
You mean you have not proven forgery, the two Richos use totally
different email addresses, therefore the only reasonable presumption
remains, "Innocent, unless proven guilty." You poor theist
true-believers, you God Warriors <http://tinylink.com/?AZGkenkp7k>,
need a refresher course in human rights.
Wow; what a surprise; another subject DotSix doesn't understand.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal term, DotSix. It ensures that
you can't be held responsible for an action by the government, and thus
can't be legally punished for that action, unless your guilt can be
proven in a court of law. It DOESN'T mean the people around you have to
hold a judicial inquiry before making fun of you for your pathetic
attempt at forgery.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
18 Nov 2005 12:41:18 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
The argument that there might be a God because the existence of God has
not been disproven isn't even an argument; it's a tautology.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
I can, and I did.
Don't be stupid. How could it be called forgery when it has a
completely different email address, moron?
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else
But this doesn't look like at all like you, moron,
I post under the name "Richo" you posted under the name "Richo".
You fooled Nemo and you fooled Malibu Skipper because neither of them
looked any closer than the name.
Those facts are never going away.
Speaking of gong away - could you leave-us-the-*****-alone?
Thanks, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:34:32 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
Read for understanding:
Here is Copi's example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ which you
have yet to face up to honestly:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
<snip the rest pending settlement of this, the main issue>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:38:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1132086872.214438.44490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:42:09 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
I already asked you a question, in another thread, which you have been
unable to answer: how many home runs did Harmon Killebrew hit in his
career?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:02:41 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
I already asked you a question, in another thread, which you have been
unable to answer: how many home runs did Harmon Killebrew hit in his
career?
Thanks for not finding anything questionable in anything I said.
So now you have conceded that your lame argument, "There aren't any
"mights" in the argument from ignorance" is debunked, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:42:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1132088561.018673.17030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
So now you have conceded that your lame argument, "There aren't any
"mights" in the argument from ignorance" is debunked, right?
Wrong! Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE"
the case for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it
"MUST BE" the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:10:36 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
I already asked you a question, in another thread, which you have been
unable to answer: how many home runs did Harmon Killebrew hit in his
career?
Thanks for not finding anything questionable in anything I said.
So now you have conceded that your lame argument, "There aren't any
"mights" in the argument from ignorance" is debunked, right?
There AREN'T any "mights" in the argument from ignorance. And yet, you
and your imaginary friends continue to use the argumentum ad
killebrewtium in support of your mythical thingy. Why have you not
responded to what Borges say below?
"These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those attributed
by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial
Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written
that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b)
embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e)
mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included
in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j)
innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush,
(l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those
that resemble flies from a distance."
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:20:12 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
I already asked you a question, in another thread, which you have been
unable to answer: how many home runs did Harmon Killebrew hit in his
career?
Thanks for not finding anything questionable in anything I said.
So now you have conceded that your lame argument, "There aren't any
"mights" in the argument from ignorance" is debunked, right?
There AREN'T any "mights" in the argument from ignorance.
We just debunked that argument, remember? Remember what 'hypothesis'
means? It means 'might be' conjecture.
Read for understanding:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
06 Dec 2005 08:13:30 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance ...
There is a 'might' in both arguments being considered here. That is
what 'hypothesis' means. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture.
You argue that there might be a God, and this hypothesis (your 'might
be' conjecture) OS XI could not prove false, and the theists in Copi's
example argue that God might have installed an invisible crystalline
substance in all the apparent irregularities of the moon, and this
hypothesis Galileo could not prove false. The two arguments are the
same type: argument _ad ignorantiam_. See it now? Any questions on this
point?
I already asked you a question, in another thread, which you have been
unable to answer: how many home runs did Harmon Killebrew hit in his
career?
Thanks for not finding anything questionable in anything I said.
So now you have conceded that your lame argument, "There aren't any
"mights" in the argument from ignorance" is debunked, right?
There AREN'T any "mights" in the argument from ignorance.
We just debunked that argument,
False.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 04:58:40 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is a theist hypothesis that there IS a god
There is no God in evidence,
Theists nonetheless believe that "there IS a god".
That there might be a God
That "there IS a god", sir. Two bags full, Septic. (Theists believe
that "there IS a god"; by _definition_ of "theist", sir.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 05:41:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is a theist hypothesis that there IS a god
There is no God in evidence,
Theists nonetheless believe that "there IS a god". You still don't
quite get that, Septic, do you.
Of course he gets it. He just craves the attention he gets
when he pretends not to, as pathetic as that is.
Do please keep demonstrating how
clueless you are though; your demonstration goes here:
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 11:46:52 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is a theist hypothesis that there IS a god
There is no God in evidence,
Theists nonetheless believe that "there IS a god". You still don't
quite get that, Septic, do you.
Of course he gets it. He just craves the attention he gets
when he pretends not to, as pathetic as that is.
Dell and Jeff continue to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best they can do?
OS XI:
You still don't quite get it. There is no God in evidence, it is purely
hypothetical. Hypothesis means 'might be' conjecture. You cannot
continue to argue as you do that there might be a God who said "Let
there be light" and there was light, because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false. That is textbook logical fallacy:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 03:12:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1131990412.561375.139430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is a theist hypothesis that there IS a god
There is no God in evidence,
Theists nonetheless believe that "there IS a god". You still don't
quite get that, Septic, do you.
Of course he gets it. He just craves the attention he gets
when he pretends not to, as pathetic as that is.
Dell and Jeff continue to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best they can do?
If Septic thinks that that is the best they can do, he overrates his own
importance. They save their best for serious situatins.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 03:45:18 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is a theist hypothesis that there IS a god
There is no God in evidence,
Theists nonetheless believe that "there IS a god". You still don't
quite get that, Septic, do you.
Of course he gets it. He just craves the attention he gets
when he pretends not to, as pathetic as that is.
Dell and Jeff continue to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best they can do?
Why do you say this in public and say something different
in e-mail?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 09:17:35 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters,
Nope. I'm the doubter.
No you are not,
I doubt what you say here, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 02:42:28 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuiti vely true have dropped like flies in the
last century or so.
You are trying to reason with a certified wacko/net kook as
you soon will discover if you persist.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things. I
think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life savings
that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a mathematical
formula proving that something CAN be produced from nothing.
Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does most of the
twentieth century..=E2=84=A6
.
|
|
|
| User: "SquareKnot" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 03:37:06 AM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131439347.983024.17100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuiti vely true have dropped like flies in
the
last century or so.
You are trying to reason with a certified wacko/net kook as
you soon will discover if you persist.
How many times do you have to be reminded that argument ad hominem like
that is logical fallacy, Dell?
Skipper is arguing that there might be a God who might have created the
universe from nothing because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false, isn't he? That is the fallacy of
argument from ignorance, isn't it? "... some physicist somewhere might
come up with proof that something CAN be created from nothing" he
argues.
Well, we will just have to wait and see, won't we? Meanwhile the only
reasonable presumption, like the reasonable presumption of NO GUILT in
court, is no God (creator) and no creation from nothing.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things.
I
think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life savings
that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a mathematical
formula proving that something CAN be produced from nothing.
Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does most of the
twentieth century..?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "todd" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 01:23:30 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies in the
last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought they had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things. I
think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life savings
that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a mathematical
formula proving that something CAN be produced from nothing.
Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does most of the
twentieth century.
Well now hold on a minute, let's think this through. Your argument is that the
universe might not be eternal, everything might have been created from nothing
by God because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false? Doesn't that sound like argument _ad ignorantiam_ (argument from
ignorance) to your ear? With all due respect, it does to mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 07:12:24 PM |
|
|
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies in
the last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things.
I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life
savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a
mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced from
nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does
most of the twentieth century.
Well now hold on a minute, let's think this through. Your argument is
that the universe might not be eternal, everything might have been
created from nothing by God because there is no proof that hypothesis
(that 'might be' conjecture) is false? Doesn't that sound like argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (argument from ignorance) to your ear? With all due
respect, it does to mine.
I didn't mention God; and I don't intend to, since I don't believe in
him. My only point was that we don't have any evidence at all to
indicate where everything came from. All the theories I know of are
philosophically problematic; so I'm inclined to withhold judgement
entirely until I hear something convincing from the scientific community.
.
|
|
|
| User: "todd" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 08:50:36 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies in
the last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then,
we've stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of
particles smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark
matter, extra dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among
other things. I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to
bet my life savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up
with a mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced
from nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so
does most of the twentieth century.
Well now hold on a minute, let's think this through. Your argument is
that the universe might not be eternal, everything might have been
created from nothing by God because there is no proof that hypothesis
(that 'might be' conjecture) is false? Doesn't that sound like
argument _ad ignorantiam_ (argument from ignorance) to your ear? With
all due respect, it does to mine.
I didn't mention God; ...
The idea you are promoting, that the universe had to have a beginning, had to
come from somewhere, rather than being eternal, is an idea commonly promoted by
the proponents of God the hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) creator of
everything. If you don't want people to think you are one of those then don't
promote their ideas. Fair enough?
and I don't intend to, since I don't believe in
him. My only point was that we don't have any evidence at all to
indicate where everything came from. All the theories I know of are
philosophically problematic; so I'm inclined to withhold judgement
entirely until I hear something convincing from the scientific community.
You are assuming it necessarily had to come from somewhere. You keep insisting,
"we don't have any evidence at all to indicate WHERE EVERYTHING CAME FROM"
[EMPHASIS ADDED] implying that it might have had a beginning and thus might
have had a Creator. It is not a necessity that the universe had a beginning,
and thus came from somewhere. (That's a rather odd idea, actually, invented by
the theists who want there to be a Creator.) The fact is that if anything can
be eternal, then as Russell points out, to be logically consistent, it might as
well be the totality of existence (universe, megaverse, cosmos, whatever you
want to call it) as the hypothetically eternal God/Creator or anything else.
See the issue here, logical consistency?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 10:07:30 PM |
|
|
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but
a lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies
in the last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought
they had the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since
then, we've stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of
particles smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark
matter, extra dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among
other things. I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to
bet my life savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up
with a mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced
from nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so
does most of the twentieth century.
Well now hold on a minute, let's think this through. Your argument is
that the universe might not be eternal, everything might have been
created from nothing by God because there is no proof that hypothesis
(that 'might be' conjecture) is false? Doesn't that sound like
argument _ad ignorantiam_ (argument from ignorance) to your ear? With
all due respect, it does to mine.
I didn't mention God; ...
The idea you are promoting, that the universe had to have a beginning,
had to come from somewhere, rather than being eternal, is an idea
commonly promoted by the proponents of God the hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) creator of everything. If you don't want people to think you
are one of those then don't promote their ideas. Fair enough?
No, not really. In the first place, I'm not "promoting" anything at
all. I don't know where the universe came from, or whether it came from
anywhere at all. I'm certainly not arguing that it must have a cause;
I'm not even arguing that it must have a beginning -- only that it could
have.
and I don't intend to, since I don't believe in him. My only point
was that we don't have any evidence at all to indicate where
everything came from. All the theories I know of are philosophically
problematic; so I'm inclined to withhold judgement entirely until I
hear something convincing from the scientific community.
You are assuming it necessarily had to come from somewhere.
No, I'm not. In fact, I'm arguing exactly the opposite -- that it might
very well have come from nowhere. It's my honorable opponent, the
esteemed Pope William, who insists that nothing can come from nothing.
You keep
insisting, "we don't have any evidence at all to indicate WHERE
EVERYTHING CAME FROM" [EMPHASIS ADDED] implying that it might have had a
beginning and thus might have had a Creator. It is not a necessity that
the universe had a beginning, and thus came from somewhere. (That's a
rather odd idea, actually, invented by the theists who want there to be
a Creator.) The fact is that if anything can be eternal, then as Russell
points out, to be logically consistent, it might as well be the totality
of existence (universe, megaverse, cosmos, whatever you want to call it)
as the hypothetically eternal God/Creator or anything else. See the
issue here, logical consistency?
Certainly. I agree with Russell entirely. If anything can be eternal,
in fact, then by Occam's razor it's much more likely to be the universe
than a hypothetical creator. What I'm saying is that it's not logically
necessary for ANYTHING to be eternal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 01:51:29 AM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:6Cecf.2918$bU3.883670@twister.southeast.rr.com...
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
todd wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies in
the last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things.
I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life
savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a
mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced from
nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does
most of the twentieth century.
Well now hold on a minute, let's think this through. Your argument is
that the universe might not be eternal, everything might have been
created from nothing by God because there is no proof that hypothesis
(that 'might be' conjecture) is false? Doesn't that sound like argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (argument from ignorance) to your ear? With all due
respect, it does to mine.
I didn't mention God; ...
The idea you are promoting, that the universe had to have a beginning,
had to come from somewhere, rather than being eternal, is an idea
commonly promoted by the proponents of God the hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) creator of everything. If you don't want people to think you
are one of those then don't promote their ideas. Fair enough?
No, not really. In the first place, I'm not "promoting" anything at all.
I don't know where the universe came from, or whether it came from
anywhere at all. I'm certainly not arguing that it must have a cause; I'm
not even arguing that it must have a beginning -- only that it could have.
and I don't intend to, since I don't believe in him. My only point was
that we don't have any evidence at all to indicate where everything came
from. All the theories I know of are philosophically problematic; so
I'm inclined to withhold judgement entirely until I hear something
convincing from the scientific community.
You are assuming it necessarily had to come from somewhere.
No, I'm not. In fact, I'm arguing exactly the opposite -- that it might
very well have come from nowhere. It's my honorable opponent, the
esteemed Pope William, who insists that nothing can come from nothing.
You keep insisting, "we don't have any evidence at all to indicate WHERE
EVERYTHING CAME FROM" [EMPHASIS ADDED] implying that it might have had a
beginning and thus might have had a Creator. It is not a necessity that
the universe had a beginning, and thus came from somewhere. (That's a
rather odd idea, actually, invented by the theists who want there to be
a Creator.) The fact is that if anything can be eternal, then as Russell
points out, to be logically consistent, it might as well be the totality
of existence (universe, megaverse, cosmos, whatever you want to call it)
as the hypothetically eternal God/Creator or anything else. See the issue
here, logical consistency?
Certainly. I agree with Russell entirely. If anything can be eternal, in
fact, then by Occam's razor it's much more likely to be the universe than
a hypothetical creator.
Don't be silly, it is not a matter of comparing the probability of a cosmos
that has always existed with the probability of a Creator that has always
existed. As Russell points out, the very idea that there might have been a
Creator, a first cause, and therefore a beginning, is summarily rejected due
to the logical inconsistency that notion entails. See the point?
Here is Russell showing cause for summarily rejecting the notion of a first
cause/creator, and thus a beginning:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause,
and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come
to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That
argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and
the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the
vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the
argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any
validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these
questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument
of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it
immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple
sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If
there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the
tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is
really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason
why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that
the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." -- Russell
"Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
What I'm saying is that it's not logically necessary for ANYTHING to be
eternal.
What about the totality of existence (the 'world' Russell mentions above)?
How could that could that have ever come from nothing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 08:23:21 AM |
|
|
Mac wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:6Cecf.2918$bU3.883670@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Certainly. I agree with Russell entirely. If anything can be eternal, in
fact, then by Occam's razor it's much more likely to be the universe than
a hypothetical creator.
Don't be silly,
Oh. Okay.
it is not a matter of comparing the probability of a cosmos
that has always existed with the probability of a Creator that has always
existed. As Russell points out, the very idea that there might have been a
Creator, a first cause, and therefore a beginning, is summarily rejected due
to the logical inconsistency that notion entails. See the point?
Sigh. Yes, I see the point.
Here is Russell showing cause for summarily rejecting the notion of a first
cause/creator, and thus a beginning:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause,
and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come
to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That
argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and
the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the
vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the
argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any
validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these
questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument
of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it
immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple
sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If
there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the
tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is
really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason
why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that
the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." -- Russell
"Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Russell isn't arguing that there logically COULDN'T be a creator; only
that there's no reason whatsoever to assume there was one. I agree with
him.
What I'm saying is that it's not logically necessary for ANYTHING to be
eternal.
What about the totality of existence (the 'world' Russell mentions above)?
How could that could that have ever come from nothing?
I don't know. As I've pointed out elsewhere, we know nothing at all
about the Plank epoch -- the first, unimaginably short instant after the
Big Bang. Until we do, we can't really say much about how the universe
came to exist, or whether it came to exist. It's worth noting that
Russell, in the quote above, appears to accept this: "There is no
reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have
always existed." This is pretty much my opinion on the matter in a
nutshell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SquareKnot" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 03:47:10 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Mac wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:6Cecf.2918$bU3.883670@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Certainly. I agree with Russell entirely. If anything can be
eternal, in fact, then by Occam's razor it's much more likely to be
the universe than a hypothetical creator.
Don't be silly,
Oh. Okay.
it is not a matter of comparing the probability of a cosmos that has
always existed with the probability of a Creator that has always
existed. As Russell points out, the very idea that there might have
been a Creator, a first cause, and therefore a beginning, is summarily
rejected due to the logical inconsistency that notion entails. See the
point?
Sigh. Yes, I see the point.
Here is Russell showing cause for summarily rejecting the notion of a
first cause/creator, and thus a beginning:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world
has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and
further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you
give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very
much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite
what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got
going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to
have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there
must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say
that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very
seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the
First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart
Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since
it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That
very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the
argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may
just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity
in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's
view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested
upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the
Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really
no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to
suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things
must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument
about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Russell isn't arguing that there logically COULDN'T be a creator ...
How could there possibly be a creator when the very idea of a creator entails
logical fallacy in the form of a special pleading for one thing, the creator,
in that everything must have a cause except the creator, who is hypothetically
SPECIAL? Russell makes this point very clear, that the very idea there might be
a creator is summarily rejected for cause, by pointing out that to be logically
consistent, if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. How
could you not catch that? It is as clear as the back of your hand. "I need not
waste any more time" Russell says, meaning that the very idea is summarily
rejected for cause (inherent logical fallacy). Any questions on this point?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | |
