Are you a weak or strong theist?

Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Are you a weak or strong theist?

A good deal of people are 'weak theists'. This means that they have the potential to allow for the possiblity of God's existence, but don't actually hold an affirmative belief in God. They usually hold to this position because they stumbled onto some atheist blog or website and consider themselves superior to others for discovering such a scandalous & new idea.

If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you a theist, not an atheist or agnostic! Why is this so? Because I've decided to expand the definition of "theist" to include more people so that I would have the edge in debates. According to this page it's apparently ok to ignore years of the correct etymological definitions. And apparently a position is defined by people who fit the position instead of common usage.

 

EVERYONE ON EARTH WAS BORN A THEIST!

ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS ARE THEISTS!

ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS BELIEVE THEY ARE MERELY AGNOSTIC OR ATHEIST. BUT THEY ARE IN FACT THEISTS! IT WAS BECAUSE OF MY OPEN MIND THAT I WAS WILLING TO DIVULGE YOUR MISTAKES! What is your mind like? Are you open to the evidence that you might have been lied to about what the terms mean? Do you realize that atheists mispresent the definition of atheism to spread their belief? If so, can you admit they lied about a topic they were highly ignorant of (atheism)?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Bah! I almost don't even

Bah! I almost don't even care anymore.

It's just semantics. Regardless of what word we use, the position is the same. I think God doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. Heck, we can be wrong about anything. People can call that whatever they want to call it.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You expand the definition of

You expand the definition of theist to include everyone - ID proponents expand the definition of science to include their bat squeeze.

In either case, doesn't it hurt your back to carry those goalposts around?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Well, at  the moment I

  Well, at  the moment I actually consider myself to be a weak atheist but I've joined a local gym so I'm hoping that with some serious weight training and good nutrition I'll become a strong atheist.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'God' is a logically

'God' is a logically impossible concept, which adds nothing but further unknowables and massive logical complications and contradictions to questions of ultimate origins.

It can only be accepted by abandoning rational/logical discourse, or by fudging the issue and inventing whole modes of 'argument' and new forms of 'logic' just to try and wriggle around the problems inherent in the idea.

'Theism' does qualify as either an idea fit for children who have just abandoned Santa Claus, or as a semantic/philosophical challenge for those who still think final truths can be obtained by the word-games of philosophy.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I call Poe on this.  Look

I call Poe on this.  Look at that link...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'God' is a logically

Quote:
'God' is a logically impossible concept, which adds nothing but further unknowables and massive logical complications and contradictions to questions of ultimate origins.

It can only be accepted by abandoning rational/logical discourse, or by fudging the issue and inventing whole modes of 'argument' and new forms of 'logic' just to try and wriggle around the problems inherent in the idea.

Really? And what is LI about God? What logical discourse am I abandoning if I believe in God? What problems exist in the idea? In fact, what have you offered other than your opinion?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:'God'

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
'God' is a logically impossible concept, which adds nothing but further unknowables and massive logical complications and contradictions to questions of ultimate origins.

It can only be accepted by abandoning rational/logical discourse, or by fudging the issue and inventing whole modes of 'argument' and new forms of 'logic' just to try and wriggle around the problems inherent in the idea.

Really? And what is LI about God? What logical discourse am I abandoning if I believe in God? What problems exist in the idea? In fact, what have you offered other than your opinion?

Well, there's always the problem of claiming God exists but being unable to define him except by what he isn't...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Your word game demonstrates

Aedus, your word game demonstrates that you are desperate.

 

Aedus wrote:
If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you a theist, not an atheist or agnostic! Why is this so? Because I've decided to expand the definition of "theist" to include more people so that I would have the edge in debates. According to this page it's apparently ok to ignore years of the correct etymological definitions. And apparently a position is defined by people who fit the position instead of common usage.

 

 If this is a valid argument then so is the following:

 

It might interest you to know that your belief in a being that you call 'god' actually makes you an atheist, not a theist! Because I've decided to expand the definition of 'atheist' to include you. According to the dictionary a theist is an individual who believes there is a thing commonly referred to as a god.

 

A god is supposedly a supernatural being.

 

A supernatural  being is supposedly a being above or beyond what is natural.

 

Something considered to be natural is a thing existing in or formed by nature, based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature, of or pertaining to nature or the universe, having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual; of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution, consonant with the nature or character of, in accordance with the nature of things, based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation, true to or closely imitating nature.

 

As you can see the word 'nature' is the exact opposite of supernature (god).

 

Further more, the definition of 'universe' is everything that exists.

 

Since god is defined as a being that is beyond and outside the universe it follows that god does not exist.

Therefore you believe in something that does not exist. Soooooo that makes you an atheist.

 

 

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Bah! I

butterbattle wrote:
Bah! I almost don't even care anymore.

It's just semantics. Regardless of what word we use, the position is the same. I think God doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. Heck, we can be wrong about anything. People can call that whatever they want to call it.

I just think people should be clear about what they believe. It's annoying to ask atheists why they don't believe in God (since, you know, an atheist has always been defined that way), and they reply with something like "I'm under no obligation to explain my stance".

Let's face it - the reason atheism has become popular is because the word provides the greatest "shock value" for theists, not because atheists picked it out as the best word that describes them. As a result, we have a legion of people who are trying to redefine the word to go against common usage & correct etymological usage because they're aware that an affirmative "God doesn't exist" argument is a crock.

BobSpence1 wrote:
'God' is a logically impossible concept, which adds nothing but further unknowables and massive logical complications and contradictions to questions of ultimate origins.

God is a logical concept - you just have to accept some difficult ideas to hold that concept. But once you do, it at least provides a coherent explanation, unlike the alternative explanations, which can't hold up against even basic rational scrutiny. Furthermore, not only do I fail to see what any of this has to do with the thread, but I don't believe we will ever find any evidence for God, so your point is moot as far as I'm concerned. I also think, however, that we will find even less evidence for atheism, which has even more logical complications - unless you go with the "I don't know" cop-out.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can only be accepted by abandoning rational/logical discourse, or by fudging the issue and inventing whole modes of 'argument' and new forms of 'logic' just to try and wriggle around the problems inherent in the idea.

'Theism' does qualify as either an idea fit for children who have just abandoned Santa Claus, or as a semantic/philosophical challenge for those who still think final truths can be obtained by the word-games of philosophy.

If you wish to believe that then it's your prerogative, as long as we're clear that atheism is riddled with even more fallacies & non-explanations, which I've basically proven in my other thread.

aiia wrote:
If this is a valid argument then so is the following:

It might interest you to know that your belief in a being that you call 'god' actually makes you an atheist, not a theist! Because I've decided to expand the definition of 'atheist' to include you. According to the dictionary a theist is an individual who believes there is a thing commonly referred to as a god.

Well, atheists have already redefined their position to include every single person on the planet except the opposition, so redefining the word like you did above seems like the next logical step for atheists.

Quote:
Further more, the definition of 'universe' is everything that exists.

Yes, a universe is "everything that exists anywhere". Unfortunately, the bounds on which a God would operate (say, extra dimensions) are not considered a "where". Furthermore, I'm using the cosmological definition of universe, not some sort of common slang usage.

Quote:
That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of something called god is irrelevant because nonexistence cannot be proved of anything.

Then if you're an atheist perhaps you shouldn't have taken up an irrelevant position?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus,1. Funny, I picked the

Aedus,

1. Funny, I picked the word out because it fits nicely with my views. Look up the etymology of the word and you'll see what I mean.

2. If by "God is a logical concept" you mean a god can be thought up by humans - I agree. If you mean that God can be logically derived, then you have to explain how a logical concept can be derived from illogical concepts.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:aiia wrote:If

Aedus wrote:

aiia wrote:
If this is a valid argument then so is the following:

It might interest you to know that your belief in a being that you call 'god' actually makes you an atheist, not a theist! Because I've decided to expand the definition of 'atheist' to include you. According to the dictionary a theist is an individual who believes there is a thing commonly referred to as a god.

Well, atheists have already redefined their position to include every single person on the planet except the opposition, so redefining the word like you did above seems like the next logical step for atheists.

Your claim is that there is something you call god. I've dismissed your claim based on the incoherence of the word 'god' as I demonstrated and I've dismissed the claim of "god's" existence based on all other arguments as a result of intangible evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Further more, the definition of 'universe' is everything that exists.

Yes, a universe is "everything that exists anywhere". Unfortunately, the bounds on which a God would operate (say, extra dimensions) are not considered a "where".

You obviously do not understand what a universe is. The universe is the totality of matter and energy in existence - matter, energy, time, and space. All dimensions are derivatives of matter, energy, time, and space, thus either 'god' is bound by the universe or it doesnt exist. There is no 'where' "outside the universe"; there is no "outside the universe", just as there is no 'squarecircle' or 'married bachelor'.

Quote:
Quote:
That fact that I cannot prove the nonexistence of something called god is irrelevant because nonexistence cannot be proved of anything.

Then if you're an atheist perhaps you shouldn't have taken up an irrelevant position?

 

There's no juxtaposition here. It seems your comment to my quote is non sequitur. At any rate, atheism is hardly irrelevant because you did, after all, make a post or 2, therefore it is relevant enough for you to post right?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:they reply with

Aedus wrote:
they reply with something like "I'm under no obligation to explain my stance".

Hahaha, that's so corny. I've never heard anyone say something like that.

Quote:
Let's face it - the reason atheism has become popular is because the word provides the greatest "shock value" for theists, not because atheists picked it out as the best word that describes them.

I kind of agree, and I kind of disagree.

I don't believe in God, so I consider myself an atheist. I don't know any better words. However, since most of the people in the world are theists, there's a lot of negative baggage attached to "atheism;" the word is infamous. So, it gets to the point where calling yourself an atheist seems to have more of an affect on theists than just saying you don't believe in God. As a result, some atheists like to flaunt the word.

Quote:
Yes, a universe is "everything that exists anywhere". Unfortunately, the bounds on which a God would operate (say, extra dimensions) are not considered a "where".

Ugh.....

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Your claim is

aiia wrote:
Your claim is that there is something you call god. I've dismissed your claim based on the incoherence of the word 'god' as I demonstrated and I've dismissed the claim of "god's" existence based on all other arguments as a result of intangible evidence.

Actually, I made no such claim in this thread.

Quote:
You obviously do not understand what a universe is. The universe is the totality of matter and energy in existence - matter, energy, time, and space. All dimensions are derivatives of matter, energy, time, and space, thus either 'god' is bound by the universe or it doesnt exist. There is no 'where' "outside the universe"; there is no "outside the universe", just as there is no 'squarecircle' or 'married bachelor'.

Sigh. What if the universe is in a multiverse? Something initiated the expansion of our universe. It was not inside of our universe because an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed to get to the point in time when inflation started, hence it would not have happened. This puts a dampener on your little hypothesis here doesn't it?

Quote:
There's no juxtaposition here. It seems your comment to my quote is non sequitur. At any rate, atheism is hardly irrelevant because you did, after all, make a post or 2, therefore it is relevant enough for you to post right?

Atheism is the claim that God does not exist. You just said that proving the nonexistence of God is irrelevant. Therefore, according to you, atheism is irrelevant. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. Simply claiming that I committed a non sequitur does not make it so.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:'God'

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
'God' is a logically impossible concept, which adds nothing but further unknowables and massive logical complications and contradictions to questions of ultimate origins.

It can only be accepted by abandoning rational/logical discourse, or by fudging the issue and inventing whole modes of 'argument' and new forms of 'logic' just to try and wriggle around the problems inherent in the idea.

Really? And what is LI about God? What logical discourse am I abandoning if I believe in God? What problems exist in the idea? In fact, what have you offered other than your opinion?

It is logically impossible for 'God' to be the first cause of everything (including himself).

All the omni and infinite attributes are incoherent and contradictory, unsupported by any evidence or observation, in fact intrinsically un-observable, and the idea of something as intrinsically non-elementary as an intelligent super-being simply existing, or just coming into existence, or worse, 'creating itself' or any of the other unjustified naked assertions or assumptions trotted out by the believers in such primitive nonsense trying to justify their preconception rather than critically examining it.

'God' is a naked attempt to fill in the gaps in our understanding by pasting a label over them and giving it a name.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is logically impossible for 'God' to be the first cause of everything (including himself).

But it's not logically impossible for the universe itself to be the first-cause/eternal? Seems like a double standard to me. There's an example of how far atheists' "logic" will get them - they can't even justify their own stance.

Quote:
All the omni and infinite attributes are incoherent and contradictory

Omnipotence itself is limited by onthology. Trick questions such as "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift?" violate the nature of being, and therefore we can ignore them. Peoples' ability to ask trick questions in no way invalidates the possibility of God's existence.

I don't see what your problem is with infinite attributes either - you're perfectly willing to accept the universe as being infinite are you not? What about black holes? Depending on which theory you subscribe to, their density is said to be infinite.

Quote:
'God' is a naked attempt to fill in the gaps in our understanding by pasting a label over them and giving it a name.

That's partially true. Like I said, I personally believe that no evidence of God can be found no matter how far back anyone looks. This debate has largely receded to the last area of human ignorance - ultimate origins. Humans once thought that God sat beyond the heavens, and yet he was not there. Clearly, a creator, if he exists, did not leave behind any evidence for us. I'm a deist, and I believe that God is like a watchmaker - he created the universe and let it run on its own. And so I can conclude that, since it will likely be the same deal of no evidence for him in the ultimate origins issue, we shouldn't stop investigating, etc.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I ate a few gods once.

 

 

 

They were delicious.

 

 

 

I love them all covered in relish, and mustard.

 

 

 

You should keep making more. Pancakes are delicious, but I can't leave a god ungnawed.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:BobSpence1

Aedus wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is logically impossible for 'God' to be the first cause of everything (including himself).

But it's not logically impossible for the universe itself to be the first-cause/eternal? Seems like a double standard to me. There's an example of how far atheists' "logic" will get them - they can't even justify their own stance.

I don't treat our Universe as either eternal or its own first cause.

It logically requires only a modest extrapolation of quantum uncertainty to have an occasional fluctuation large enough to trigger a Big Bang event.

From a purely logical, mathematical point of view, the first-cause would be of infinitesimal size, leading in a finite time to a macro scale event from which our Universe could emerge. The God scenario, which assumes that a God is required to initiate the 'first-cause' is the viewpoint with serious logical problems with either infinite divergent regression or self-creation, or eternal existence of something infinitely great in nature. The scientific assumption needs to posit nothing more than an energy state as close to nothing as allowed by Quantum Uncertainty.

FWIW, I don't hold that the Universe must be infinite. I don't see that our Big Bang universe can be infinite, since that would require that the Big Bang 'singularity' was already infinite, since it has been expanding at a finite rate for a finite time.

Quote:

Quote:
All the omni and infinite attributes are incoherent and contradictory

Omnipotence itself is limited by onthology. Trick questions such as "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift?" violate the nature of being, and therefore we can ignore them. Peoples' ability to ask trick questions in no way invalidates the possibility of God's existence.

I don't take seriously that particular objection either, although I don't see the response that it "violates the nature of being" as a meaningful explanation - the proposition is simply logically undecidable, a bit like the category of propositions such as "this sentence is false" .

There are better ways to express the problems. Can God create an unbreakable object? Can God break any object? Neither proposition is logically impossible separately, but one entity cannot possess both abilities simultaneously.

Quote:

I don't see what your problem is with infinite attributes either - you're perfectly willing to accept the universe as being infinite are you not? What about black holes? Depending on which theory you subscribe to, their density is said to be infinite.

As I said before, I am not "perfectly willing to accept the universe as being infinite". Any infinite extents or durations or other physical attributes , forces, etc are considered extremely problematic in Science.

The actual nature of the hypothetical singularity at the core of a Black Hole is indeed a subject of ongoing debate. An infinitely dense singularity is the implication of the basic mathematics of Black Holes, but that doesn't mean there is a real infinitely dense 'object' there. The progressive distortion of space-time as one approaches such a point suggests that the state of infinite density is something that is only approached, but never quite reached, since time also slows down toward zero as one approaches infinite gravitational intensity.

Quote:

Quote:
'God' is a naked attempt to fill in the gaps in our understanding by pasting a label over them and giving it a name.

That's partially true. Like I said, I personally believe that no evidence of God can be found no matter how far back anyone looks. This debate has largely receded to the last area of human ignorance - ultimate origins. Humans once thought that God sat beyond the heavens, and yet he was not there. Clearly, a creator, if he exists, did not leave behind any evidence for us. I'm a deist, and I believe that God is like a watchmaker - he created the universe and let it run on its own. And so I can conclude that, since it will likely be the same deal of no evidence for him in the ultimate origins issue, we shouldn't stop investigating, etc.

'God' is a totally unnecessary, non-solution to the problem of origins.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I ate a few

ClockCat wrote:

 I ate a few gods once.

 

 

 

They were delicious.

 

 

 

I love them all covered in relish, and mustard.

 

 

 

You should keep making more. Pancakes are delicious, but I can't leave a god ungnawed.

Whoa man you must be pretty damn fat. You might want to cut back. Gods have infinity calories, you know.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
I can bench 325. What's the

I can bench 325. What's the minimum for "strong"?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Really? And

jumbo1410 wrote:

Really? And what is LI about God?

Oh, y'know, somehow existing and not existing at the same time. Maybe it's the jealousy that isn't jealousy because it's "godly" jealousy, and anything that has "godly" put in front of it gets a free pass because circular ideas are okay in theology.

But basically everything about God is logically impossible.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:BobSpence1

Aedus wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is logically impossible for 'God' to be the first cause of everything (including himself).

But it's not logically impossible for the universe itself to be the first-cause/eternal? Seems like a double standard to me. There's an example of how far atheists' "logic" will get them - they can't even justify their own stance.

It's amazing how bizarre these interactions can get. Bob gives you the obvious: everything must have a first cause ... except God, thus breaking "everything" (a pure, simple contradiction) and you don't think that's justification for calling something logically impossible? It's a contradiction. That's how things become logically impossible.

Then, the icing is that you present what you assume to be Bob's position, and it's that the universe is eternal, and its own cause. Wonderful.

"Oh yeah? What's your explanation? Don't have one? Then I'm right!" isn't winning. It's an argument from silence.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Also, Aedus, you keep

Also, Aedus, you keep posting the same link, which points to

this section of an Encyclopedia Britannica article

showing not only a comprehensive definition of atheist, but why an atheist would be perfectly justified in his or her beliefs.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:It's

HisWillness wrote:
It's amazing how bizarre these interactions can get. Bob gives you the obvious: everything must have a first cause ... except God, thus breaking "everything" (a pure, simple contradiction) and you don't think that's justification for calling something logically impossible? It's a contradiction. That's how things become logically impossible.

Then, the icing is that you present what you assume to be Bob's position, and it's that the universe is eternal, and its own cause. Wonderful.

Except that I was right. Bob believes that the quantum vacuum has existed for eternity. What you guys don't seem to be grasping here is that "uncaused cause" is not the same thing as "own first cause". Nobody here ever said that the universe or God was its own first cause. "Uncaused cause" is another way of saying "eternal," which either God or the universe can be, hence making your claims that God is an illogical concept worthless.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Stosis wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I ate a few gods once.

 

 

 

They were delicious.

 

 

 

I love them all covered in relish, and mustard.

 

 

 

You should keep making more. Pancakes are delicious, but I can't leave a god ungnawed.

Whoa man you must be pretty damn fat. You might want to cut back. Gods have infinity calories, you know.

 

Imaginary calories are slimming.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Also,

HisWillness wrote:
Also, Aedus, you keep posting the same link, which points to

this section of an Encyclopedia Britannica article

showing not only a comprehensive definition of atheist, but why an atheist would be perfectly justified in his or her beliefs

Yes, the comprehensive definition of atheist is someone who rejects God for a variety of reasons. There is no BS "lack of belief" definition in that article.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:HisWillness

Aedus wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Also, Aedus, you keep posting the same link, which points to

this section of an Encyclopedia Britannica article

showing not only a comprehensive definition of atheist, but why an atheist would be perfectly justified in his or her beliefs

Yes, the comprehensive definition of atheist is someone who rejects God for a variety of reasons. There is no BS "lack of belief" definition in that article.

Again, you don't know the etymology .Enlighten yourself.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:aiia wrote:Your

Aedus wrote:

aiia wrote:
Your claim is that there is something you call god. I've dismissed your claim based on the incoherence of the word 'god' as I demonstrated and I've dismissed the claim of "god's" existence based on all other arguments as a result of intangible evidence.

Actually, I made no such claim in this thread.

HERE

Aedus wrote:

"which is why I think our universe/multiverse had a definite beginning"
"the universe could still have had a beginning"
"A word is defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition"

And HERE

Aedus wrote:

"The evidence is creation, the conclusion is a creator. I make no claims about any of his properties, other than that he is the uncaused cause"
" This and other strange laws of nature defy any natural or sufficient reasons for their existence, which points to an intelligent creator."


But you do believe in a "creator". So then what is this "creator"?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:Yes, the

Aedus wrote:

Yes, the comprehensive definition of atheist is someone who rejects God for a variety of reasons. There is no BS "lack of belief" definition in that article.

The second sentence of the first paragraph of that link reads:

Quote:
Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God ...

Are you reading that differently than I am?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:"Uncaused cause"

Aedus wrote:
"Uncaused cause" is another way of saying "eternal," which either God or the universe can be, hence making your claims that God is an illogical concept worthless.

But you haven't established why you believe the universe to be eternal. I definitely missed the part where Bob asserted that the quantum vacuum was eternal. Especially when he keeps saying that the universe isn't infinite.

Are you just baiting us? It doesn't seem like you're actually reading what any of us write. Or, indeed, what you write.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Also, Aedus, maybe you've

Also, Aedus, maybe you've missed it, but I've challenged the definition of atheist a couple of times, I just took it a more radical route than anyone else generally wants to. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the whole forum engages in a hero worship of the core members. That's not the case.

First of all, we are all agnostic. Anyone who claims to know things about a Great Mysterious Whatever when that same Whatever is claimed to be inaccessible are just lying. To say you can know something about the unknowable must be lies.

It's also ridiculous to attempt to believe in something that nobody seems to be able to describe coherently. Obviously if the god in question is inaccessible, we cannot know about it (as per the above). But if it is, then it should have an observable portion, and it should interact with the physical world, thus exposing itself to observation (be it direct or indirect). But that's assuming a god that participates in the physical world, and there's no reason to make that assumption. I mean, if you're going to make an assumption, there should probably be a reason for it, and here, there is literally no reason.

So when someone says they're an atheist, that's why the burden of proof isn't on them. They're rejecting a completely nutty suggestion because it's nutty. It's not a "leap of faith", it's a leap out of logic, reason and sense. Without that leap -- into what would be insanity in other contexts -- you can't possibly trick yourself into believing in something so nonsensical.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Again, you

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, you don't know the etymology .Enlighten yourself.

Atheos + ism (which was added later) =  godless belief.

aiia wrote:
HERE

And HERE

So like I said, I made no such claim in this thread.

HisWillness wrote:
Are you reading that differently than I am?

No. But I'd love to hear your explanation for how a newborn can "reject belief in god". This should be interesting.

HisWillness wrote:
But you haven't established why you believe the universe to be eternal. I definitely missed the part where Bob asserted that the quantum vacuum was eternal.

It's the obvious conclusion. In an atheistic universe something has to be eternal, unless you're an advocate of the fireball randomly appeared in the sky for no reason & created the universe theory.I'm using "universe" in the sense of everything that exists, like the multiverse.  I'm actually surprised that you disagree to be honest - atheists have been faulted for creating these theories in order to remove the need for a God. There is plenty of scientific precedence for multiverse theories, but I don't want to get into this.

HisWillness wrote:
Especially when he keeps saying that the universe isn't infinite.

That's because multiple universes can be created through quantum fluctuations, therefore each universe would NOT be infinite.

HisWillness wrote:
Are you just baiting us? It doesn't seem like you're actually reading what any of us write. Or, indeed, what you write.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terms we are using here before jumping into the conversation?

HisWillness wrote:
I mean, if you're going to make an assumption, there should probably be a reason for it, and here, there is literally no reason.

Please - even atheists make all sorts of assumptions in their daily lives. There's no reason to act like your shit doesn't stink too. It would be ridiculous to live under this kind of system and you know it. Extraterrestrial life for example - we have no direct evidence that it exists, so therefore it's superstitious & illogical, correct?

Reason to believe in God? There are many, foremost of which is, I believe, the poor & illogical explanation of the origins of the universe for the alternatives.

HisWillness wrote:
So when someone says they're an atheist, that's why the burden of proof isn't on them.

That's ridiculous. This is exactly the type of attitude which atheists think gives them the right to claim "I'm under no obligation to explain my beliefs". Atheists are cognitivists on the issue of God, so they are compelled to defend their stance, especially when they get into these discussions. Here's why:

1) Burden of proof belongs to the affirmative statement, not just the positively worded statement...

What if a creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense? Is the burden of proof still on biologists no matter what?

2) Burden of proof is not static. You don't just get to claim someone has burden of proof and, when he gives you a good reason, ignore him and insist that the burden of proof is still on him. That's not how it works.

HisWillness wrote:
They're rejecting a completely nutty suggestion because it's nutty. It's not a "leap of faith", it's a leap out of logic, reason and sense. Without that leap -- into what would be insanity in other contexts -- you can't possibly trick yourself into believing in something so nonsensical.

I'd be happy to refute any of your claims that belief in God is a "a leap out of logic, reason and sense." Of course that would depend on how you define God, which nobody can.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:jcgadfly

Aedus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, you don't know the etymology .Enlighten yourself.

Atheos + ism (which was added later) =  godless belief.

aiia wrote:
HERE

And HERE

So like I said, I made no such claim in this thread.

HisWillness wrote:
Are you reading that differently than I am?

No. But I'd love to hear your explanation for how a newborn can "reject belief in god". This should be interesting.

HisWillness wrote:
But you haven't established why you believe the universe to be eternal. I definitely missed the part where Bob asserted that the quantum vacuum was eternal.

It's the obvious conclusion. In an atheistic universe something has to be eternal, unless you're an advocate of the fireball randomly appeared in the sky for no reason & created the universe theory.I'm using "universe" in the sense of everything that exists, like the multiverse.  I'm actually surprised that you disagree to be honest - atheists have been faulted for creating these theories in order to remove the need for a God. There is plenty of scientific precedence for multiverse theories, but I don't want to get into this.

HisWillness wrote:
Especially when he keeps saying that the universe isn't infinite.

That's because multiple universes can be created through quantum fluctuations, therefore each universe would NOT be infinite.

HisWillness wrote:
Are you just baiting us? It doesn't seem like you're actually reading what any of us write. Or, indeed, what you write.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terms we are using here before jumping into the conversation?

HisWillness wrote:
I mean, if you're going to make an assumption, there should probably be a reason for it, and here, there is literally no reason.

Please - even atheists make all sorts of assumptions in their daily lives. There's no reason to act like your shit doesn't stink too. It would be ridiculous to live under this kind of system and you know it. Extraterrestrial life for example - we have no direct evidence that it exists, so therefore it's superstitious & illogical, correct?

Reason to believe in God? There are many, foremost of which is, I believe, the poor & illogical explanation of the origins of the universe for the alternatives.

HisWillness wrote:
So when someone says they're an atheist, that's why the burden of proof isn't on them.

That's ridiculous. This is exactly the type of attitude which atheists think gives them the right to claim "I'm under no obligation to explain my beliefs". Atheists are cognitivists on the issue of God, so they are compelled to defend their stance, especially when they get into these discussions. Here's why:

1) Burden of proof belongs to the affirmative statement, not just the positively worded statement...

What if a creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense? Is the burden of proof still on biologists no matter what?

2) Burden of proof is not static. You don't just get to claim someone has burden of proof and, when he gives you a good reason, ignore him and insist that the burden of proof is still on him. That's not how it works.

HisWillness wrote:
They're rejecting a completely nutty suggestion because it's nutty. It's not a "leap of faith", it's a leap out of logic, reason and sense. Without that leap -- into what would be insanity in other contexts -- you can't possibly trick yourself into believing in something so nonsensical.

I'd be happy to refute any of your claims that belief in God is a "a leap out of logic, reason and sense." Of course that would depend on how you define God, which nobody can.

I'll leave Will to decimate the rest of your post.

Now, just because the suffix for belief was added later, the definition is incorrect?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Now, just

jcgadfly wrote:
Now, just because the suffix for belief was added later, the definition is incorrect?

Actually, no. This is a rather simple concept, and since you seem kind of slow I'll spell it out very explicitly. The suffix shows that atheism is an affirmative belief, not a lack of belief. It is a rejection of Gods. There is no etymology which shows atheism as a lack of belief - it makes no sense for an "-ism" to be a lack of belief. Will you be able to grasp this concept without my help now? If you're still confused about what is apparently your own position, send me a private message.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:HisWillness

Aedus wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Are you reading that differently than I am?

No. But I'd love to hear your explanation for how a newborn can "reject belief in god". This should be interesting.

What are you talking about? What's the difference what a newborn believes? Children believe literally anything they're told -- it helps them learn quicker. You couldn't really say that a newborn necessarily believes anything anyway, so they're definitely not theists.

Aedus wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
But you haven't established why you believe the universe to be eternal. I definitely missed the part where Bob asserted that the quantum vacuum was eternal.

It's the obvious conclusion. In an atheistic universe something has to be eternal, unless you're an advocate of the fireball randomly appeared in the sky for no reason & created the universe theory.

I find it strange that you can't accept the idea that we don't know certain things. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean that there is only one explanation. In an atheistic universe, why does something have to be eternal?

Aedus wrote:
I'm actually surprised that you disagree to be honest - atheists have been faulted for creating these theories in order to remove the need for a God.

That's ridiculous. God never shows up, so there's no reason to include God in the theories that are considered. It's not like a scientist has to fight God off with a stick, God never arrives in any way, shape or form.

Aedus wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
I mean, if you're going to make an assumption, there should probably be a reason for it, and here, there is literally no reason.

Please - even atheists make all sorts of assumptions in their daily lives.

Well yeah, but not things that have absolutely no effect on their day-to-day existence.

Aedus wrote:
There's no reason to act like your shit doesn't stink too. It would be ridiculous to live under this kind of system and you know it.

What kind of system? What the hell are you talking about? Believing things that present themselves to us? Interacting with observable reality? Yeah, that's madness! What was I thinking?

Aedus wrote:
Extraterrestrial life for example - we have no direct evidence that it exists, so therefore it's superstitious & illogical, correct?

At least we can comfortably say it's possible. That's assuming these are physical extra-terrestrial beings? Beings participating in the physical world?

Aedus wrote:
Reason to believe in God? There are many, foremost of which is, I believe, the poor & illogical explanation of the origins of the universe for the alternatives.

Let me get this straight: you believe in God because the explanations you've heard for the origins of the universe aren't good enough? That's it? That's the reason to believe in something you can't define, that exists in a way that is incoherent, and happens to incidentally resemble a character in a 2,000 year old desert fable?

Aedus wrote:
1) Burden of proof belongs to the affirmative statement, not just the positively worded statement...

And I've already demonstrated that conceptions of God are pure nonsense.

Aedus wrote:
What if a creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense? Is the burden of proof still on biologists no matter what?

It wouldn't matter. The biologist could shoulder the burden pretty easily, given the amount of evidence.

Aedus wrote:
2) Burden of proof is not static. You don't just get to claim someone has burden of proof and, when he gives you a good reason, ignore him and insist that the burden of proof is still on him. That's not how it works.

Let's hear a good reason, then. If you're going to introduce a Magical Something, then give us a good reason. An argument from silence is a fallacy, and not a good reason.

Aedus wrote:
I'd be happy to refute any of your claims that belief in God is a "a leap out of logic, reason and sense." Of course that would depend on how you define God, which nobody can.

Then what do you believe in? Something that ... you don't know what it is? Some vague notion of perfection? An inkling that can only be communicated by simile?

Why would I believe you that this thing you're proposing exists? Even including a way for it to exist in a way that the physical world doesn't (somehow), why would I believe you? You've given me absolutely no reason.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:jcgadfly

Aedus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Now, just because the suffix for belief was added later, the definition is incorrect?

Actually, no. This is a rather simple concept, and since you seem kind of slow I'll spell it out very explicitly. The suffix shows that atheism is an affirmative belief, not a lack of belief. It is a rejection of Gods. There is no etymology which shows atheism as a lack of belief - it makes no sense for an "-ism" to be a lack of belief. Will you be able to grasp this concept without my help now? If you're still confused about what is apparently your own position, send me a private message.


"No god belief" is not the same as rejection of gods. It is a need for evidence.

I've rejected no possibility - indeed I can't reject a possibility unless I have enough evidence.

I think you still need some help with the concept. You're dealing in black and white (rather like a Christian) in an gray arey.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"No god

jcgadfly wrote:
"No god belief" is not the same as rejection of gods. It is a need for evidence.

I've rejected no possibility - indeed I can't reject a possibility unless I have enough evidence.

I know this is a dead horse, but it's my dead horse:

It's not possible to gather evidence for something that can't even be assigned a hypothesis. If we don't know what we're looking for, there's no reason to wait for evidence.

After all, you'd be waiting for evidence that supported ... what, exactly? Something that manages to contradict its own existence logically? No need to go on the assumption that any evidence is forthcoming to support a nonsensical entity.

I'm just saying you don't have to be nice about it, because what you're really doing is being intellectually thorough where it's not required. If this concerned a hypothesis of a physical creature, your extra caution would be warranted. Here, you can't even hope for evidence. You're experiencing misplaced scientific humility in the face of the unknown.

This isn't just the unknown, it's the unknowable within the empirical method. Like non-overlapping magisteria where there's no reason to believe that one of the magisteria actually exists.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What are

HisWillness wrote:
What are you talking about? What's the difference what a newborn believes? Children believe literally anything they're told -- it helps them learn quicker. You couldn't really say that a newborn necessarily believes anything anyway, so they're definitely not theists.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that my original post was a parody of this article: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

It claims that everyone is born atheist - a ridiculous claim.

Quote:
I find it strange that you can't accept the idea that we don't know certain things.

I do accept that idea actually - but it's possible to extrapolate some things.

Quote:
In an atheistic universe, why does something have to be eternal?

Because if the first cause starts from a definite point in time, it points to a God. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory of relativity because he adhered strongly to the idea that the universe is static, not beginning from a single point in time, because this would point to a God. He claimed "the priests haven't gotten to me yet". Yet the cosmological constant ended up being his biggest mistake.

The uni/multiverse is one of three things: eternal, accidental, or created. It does not matter that you're agnostic, the universe is still only one of those three things. The last option atheists refuse, and the second option is nonsensical. Note that the second option does not include quantum fluctuations or anything of the kind - it indicates the spontaneous creation of the universe from literal nothingness. This is an illogical/retarded idea. We're talking about ultimate origins here.

Quote:
What kind of system? What the hell are you talking about?

Not believing anything without 100% irrefutable proof. Does the continent of Australia exist? For all you know it's all a giant conspiracy and planes that claim to fly there actually take you somewhere else! Going by atheist logic, belief in the continent of Australia is illogical & superstitious.

Quote:
At least we can comfortably say it's possible. That's assuming these are physical extra-terrestrial beings? Beings participating in the physical world?

Right, you've got no proof for those things at all. I can also say God is possible - whoop dee doo. Extra-terrestrial beings? What, am I supposed to believe that they exist just because there are hundreds of comics and movies on the subject?

Quote:
Let me get this straight: you believe in God because the explanations you've heard for the origins of the universe aren't good enough? That's it?

I believe in a God because a created universe makes more sense and far fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

Quote:
And I've already demonstrated that conceptions of God are pure nonsense.

Uhm, no, you haven't. Simply repeating it does not count as demonstrating it.

Quote:
Then what do you believe in? Something that ... you don't know what it is? Some vague notion of perfection? An inkling that can only be communicated by simile?

How is this even relevant anyway? I can give you 3-4 basic assumptions. Just because I don't know everything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Do you have to know every single detail about the theory to believe in it? No?

Quote:
Why would I believe you that this thing you're proposing exists? Even including a way for it to exist in a way that the physical world doesn't (somehow), why would I believe you? You've given me absolutely no reason.

I'm not looking to give you a reason - I don't care whether you believe in God. Your bias would prevent you from evaluating my reasons objectively anyway, so it's hardly a good use of my time.

Quote:
"No god belief" is not the same as rejection of gods. It is a need for evidence.

According to pretty much every single dictionary/encyclopedia, yes it is. Whatever you want to call it, it is still not a "lack of belief". A newborn baby has no need for evidence. I seriously think you guys should try out agnosticism, which actually IS a need for evidence.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:HisWillness

Aedus wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
What are you talking about? What's the difference what a newborn believes? Children believe literally anything they're told -- it helps them learn quicker. You couldn't really say that a newborn necessarily believes anything anyway, so they're definitely not theists.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that my original post was a parody of this article: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

It claims that everyone is born atheist - a ridiculous claim.

Quote:
I find it strange that you can't accept the idea that we don't know certain things.

I do accept that idea actually - but it's possible to extrapolate some things.

Quote:
In an atheistic universe, why does something have to be eternal?

Because if the first cause starts from a definite point in time, it points to a God. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory of relativity because he adhered strongly to the idea that the universe is static, not beginning from a single point in time, because this would point to a God. He claimed "the priests haven't gotten to me yet". Yet the cosmological constant ended up being his biggest mistake.

The uni/multiverse is one of three things: eternal, accidental, or created. It does not matter that you're agnostic, the universe is still only one of those three things. The last option atheists refuse, and the second option is nonsensical. Note that the second option does not include quantum fluctuations or anything of the kind - it indicates the spontaneous creation of the universe from literal nothingness. This is an illogical/retarded idea. We're talking about ultimate origins here.

Quote:
What kind of system? What the hell are you talking about?

Not believing anything without 100% irrefutable proof. Does the continent of Australia exist? For all you know it's all a giant conspiracy and planes that claim to fly there actually take you somewhere else! Going by atheist logic, belief in the continent of Australia is illogical & superstitious.

Quote:
At least we can comfortably say it's possible. That's assuming these are physical extra-terrestrial beings? Beings participating in the physical world?

Right, you've got no proof for those things at all. I can also say God is possible - whoop dee doo. Extra-terrestrial beings? What, am I supposed to believe that they exist just because there are hundreds of comics and movies on the subject?

Quote:
Let me get this straight: you believe in God because the explanations you've heard for the origins of the universe aren't good enough? That's it?

I believe in a God because a created universe makes more sense and far fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

Quote:
And I've already demonstrated that conceptions of God are pure nonsense.

Uhm, no, you haven't. Simply repeating it does not count as demonstrating it.

Quote:
Then what do you believe in? Something that ... you don't know what it is? Some vague notion of perfection? An inkling that can only be communicated by simile?

How is this even relevant anyway? I can give you 3-4 basic assumptions. Just because I don't know everything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Do you have to know every single detail about the theory to believe in it? No?

Quote:
Why would I believe you that this thing you're proposing exists? Even including a way for it to exist in a way that the physical world doesn't (somehow), why would I believe you? You've given me absolutely no reason.

I'm not looking to give you a reason - I don't care whether you believe in God. Your bias would prevent you from evaluating my reasons objectively anyway, so it's hardly a good use of my time.

Quote:
"No god belief" is not the same as rejection of gods. It is a need for evidence.

According to pretty much every single dictionary/encyclopedia, yes it is. Whatever you want to call it, it is still not a "lack of belief". A newborn baby has no need for evidence. I seriously think you guys should try out agnosticism, which actually IS a need for evidence.

Agnosticism - different standard. But I think you knew that since you know so strongly there is a god.

It's funny how you know your God and instead of giving me something to believe in, you simply say I already believe. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that I just don't want to be accountable to your god.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:I'm not sure how

Aedus wrote:

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that my original post was a parody of this article: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

It claims that everyone is born atheist - a ridiculous claim.

Ah. As I've said, I disagree with that article.

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
In an atheistic universe, why does something have to be eternal?

Because if the first cause starts from a definite point in time, it points to a God.

That doesn't follow at all. You've given me no reason to think that because something (in this case, the universe) starts at a particular point in time, then God.

Aedus wrote:
The uni/multiverse is one of three things: eternal, accidental, or created. It does not matter that you're agnostic, the universe is still only one of those three things. The last option atheists refuse, and the second option is nonsensical. Note that the second option does not include quantum fluctuations or anything of the kind - it indicates the spontaneous creation of the universe from literal nothingness. This is an illogical/retarded idea. We're talking about ultimate origins here.

I understand that you've decided to never consider an alternative to this strange false trichotomy. I've already presented several alternatives, including the combination of "accidental" and "created", or "eternal" and "accidental", which breaks the trichotomy instantly. Adding "ultimate" to the word "origin" doesn't add any information anyway.

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
What kind of system? What the hell are you talking about?

Not believing anything without 100% irrefutable proof.

But that doesn't describe the empirical method at all. It's no wonder I didn't know what you were talking about. Having some evidence of something and believing it isn't the same as having no evidence of something and believing it. Using your example of Australia, I've been there, and so I have some evidence to suggest it exists.

Aedus wrote:
Right, you've got no proof for those things at all. I can also say God is possible - whoop dee doo. Extra-terrestrial beings? What, am I supposed to believe that they exist just because there are hundreds of comics and movies on the subject?

No, you're supposed to believe they're possible because we're discussing the physical world. God is certainly possible if God is entirely physical (which would make God indistinguishable from an extra-terrestrial, I suppose) but if God is not physical, then our question becomes more difficult, because we wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference between God and something we just made up.

Aedus wrote:
I believe in a God because a created universe makes more sense and far fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

And you have exhaustive knowledge of the alternatives, presumably. That's still an argument from silence.

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
And I've already demonstrated that conceptions of God are pure nonsense.

Uhm, no, you haven't. Simply repeating it does not count as demonstrating it.

You may not be convinced, but that doesn't mean I haven't demonstrated it. You certainly have yet to give up any information about God that is coherent, so a counter-argument is still forthcoming.

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
Then what do you believe in? Something that ... you don't know what it is? Some vague notion of perfection? An inkling that can only be communicated by simile?

How is this even relevant anyway? I can give you 3-4 basic assumptions. Just because I don't know everything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Do you have to know every single detail about the theory to believe in it? No?

Again, a massive dodge. It's relevant because God is what you're presenting in opposition to what you consider an insufficient explanation. This is your solution, given that you consider all other explanations (that you know of) are poor. The natural question is why your explanation is so good. It's extremely relevant, and three or four basic assumptions isn't much of an argument.

The theory of evolution has quite a lot going for it. For one thing, it matches tons and tons of evidence.

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
Why would I believe you that this thing you're proposing exists? Even including a way for it to exist in a way that the physical world doesn't (somehow), why would I believe you? You've given me absolutely no reason.

I'm not looking to give you a reason - I don't care whether you believe in God.

How could I understand what you consider the best possible explanation for the origin of the universe without at least believing in the existence of your explanation? How do you expect me to take your explanation seriously if you don't give me a reason to do so?

Quote:
I seriously think you guys should try out agnosticism, which actually IS a need for evidence.

I seriously think there's no need to consider evidence where it couldn't be applied to a hypothesis anyway. Not only is there no need, it's impossible.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for butting in, can I

Sorry for butting in, can I just ask something? It may have already been answered:

Quote:
God is certainly possible if God is entirely physical but if God is not physical, then our question becomes more difficult, because we wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference between God and something we just made up.

Is the raw energy that condensed out of a quantum fluctuation, producing the universe; physical energy?

If yes, is this energy suppose to be, itself,  created? Or has it just always been there (eternal)?

If no, then it is something we just made up, correct?

If its 50/50, then is it not LI?

 

Quote:
Bobspence1: (TBBT) logically requires only a modest extrapolation of quantum uncertainty to have an occasional fluctuation large enough to trigger a Big Bang event... The scientific assumption needs to posit nothing more than an energy state as close to nothing as allowed by Quantum Uncertainty.

Another query of mine is that of a quantum vacuum. I thought there was meant to be nothing before TBB, not even space or time. Is this fluctuatio in a vacuum? Is this vacuum pre-Big Bang? Is not a vacuum the abscence of particles at a point in space at t?

Please answer relative to this statement:

""it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence"

If it is a non-physical vacuum (not existing in nature?), and one of atheists biggest problems with God is being "super-natural", are you not begging the question?

If I have not understood something, can you post a time-line of events pre-BB for me so I can understand where and when these fluctuations occured?
 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:God is

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
God is certainly possible if God is entirely physical but if God is not physical, then our question becomes more difficult, because we wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference between God and something we just made up.

Is the raw energy that condensed out of a quantum fluctuation, producing the universe; physical energy?

Haha! That's good! I'll give you that -- very entertaining. The problem you've identified is mathematical, not philosophical. In modelling things at that scale, it's necessary to have things like "virtual particles" and other constructs to make the math consistent with observation.

If you're going to keep pointing to gaps in knowledge as if they're a serious issue, I'm going to keep laughing your objections off. If we were at the point in science where we had absolutely everything nailed down, then we'd stop! "There!" we'd say, "Nothing left to learn!"

jumbo1410 wrote:
If yes, is this energy suppose to be, itself,  created? Or has it just always been there (eternal)?

I don't think I can answer that question. You should probably take that up with a specialist in the field. Even then, it might be a confusing question.

jumbo1410 wrote:
If no, then it is something we just made up, correct?

In a way, yes; that's correct. Mathematical constructs are "made up" all the time. The ones that help to model reality consistently are kept. Those models don't pretend to be perfect truth, they're just part of the process towards truth.

jumbo1410 wrote:
If its 50/50, then is it not LI?

No, because nobody is saying that the model of sub-atomic physics is anything other than a model.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
 HisWillness wrote:That

 

HisWillness wrote:
That doesn't follow at all. You've given me no reason to think that because something (in this case, the universe) starts at a particular point in time, then God.

If we're talking about ultimate origins, the cause of a universe that started at a particular point in time is one of two things:

1) A part of the universe/multiverse that is eternal, such as the quantum vacuum.

2) An eternal creator that is not observable in any way.

In our case, theists were big fans of number 2, because there was no evidence of number 1. How in the hell do any of these options "not follow"? How does that make any sense? I'm not picking one over the other, and I never have, I'm simply describing things how they are and listing the only reasonable alternatives.

Listen bro, the point of this thread is not necessarily to go over basic cosmogenesis, etc. This is seriously derailing the conversation. Can we continue this in my other thread?

Quote:
I understand that you've decided to never consider an alternative to this strange false trichotomy. I've already presented several alternatives, including the combination of "accidental" and "created", or "eternal" and "accidental", which breaks the trichotomy instantly.

The first combo falls in the created category regardless of whether it's accidental, and the second combo is redundant.

Quote:
But that doesn't describe the empirical method at all. It's no wonder I didn't know what you were talking about. Having some evidence of something and believing it isn't the same as having no evidence of something and believing it. Using your example of Australia, I've been there, and so I have some evidence to suggest it exists.

In my example, Australia would have been a mere superstitution until you actually went there. Just like you could consider a God a mere superstition until you've seen him.

Quote:
No, you're supposed to believe they're possible because we're discussing the physical world. God is certainly possible if God is entirely physical (which would make God indistinguishable from an extra-terrestrial, I suppose) but if God is not physical, then our question becomes more difficult, because we wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference between God and something we just made up.

How do you know we wouldn't be able to detect God if he weren't physical? That's a pure assumption. Science can indirectly detect lots of things that aren't immediately tangible. You're basically saying that it is harder to detect God than aliens. What proof do you have of this idea? Maybe we'll be able to create a device that can detect extradimensional beings before we can find a way to escape our solar system and start searching for ET life? This idea that ET life exists and it would be easier to detect it than God is just a bunch of unfounded assumptions.

Quote:
And you have exhaustive knowledge of the alternatives, presumably. That's still an argument from silence.

No, I'm an agnostic deist.

Quote:
Again, a massive dodge. It's relevant because God is what you're presenting in opposition to what you consider an insufficient explanation. This is your solution, given that you consider all other explanations (that you know of) are poor. The natural question is why your explanation is so good. It's extremely relevant, and three or four basic assumptions isn't much of an argument.

How could I understand what you consider the best possible explanation for the origin of the universe without at least believing in the existence of your explanation? How do you expect me to take your explanation seriously if you don't give me a reason to do so?

So what am I supposed to say here? You can check out my other thread I made earlier if you want to look at my reasons, but you already think my 3-4 assumptions aren't much of an argument, no matter what, despite the fact that assumptions aren't arguments.  This little conversational path here has no potential for further dialog.

Quote:
I seriously think there's no need to consider evidence where it couldn't be applied to a hypothesis anyway. Not only is there no need, it's impossible.

Honestly, I consider these false pretensions to "a need for evidence" a complete crock. What is your opinion on theoretical physicists that craft things such as string theory, etc? They deal with no part of the observable universe and their ideas have no evidence whatsoever. Should we classify their findings in the category of superstition? Perhaps these guys aren't real scientists according to you guys? You'll forgive me if I don't buy into this flawed philosophy which only applies to things that have randomly been cherry-picked to require much more evidence than is logical or reasonable.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You're an agnostic deist who

You're an agnostic deist who claims to know god exists because you've seen him?

Ooookay...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I believe a change in topic

I believe a change in topic is in order.  This topic is now about obfuscation, confusing questions, quibbles over semantics and general sophistry.  Actually, perhaps everyone should continue as they were.  I'll have to consider a topic that's actually different, unless anyone here actually wants to discuss obfuscation, confusing questions, quibbles over semantics and general sophistry instead of offering up examples in some very creative dialogue?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You're an

Thomathy - thank you for the insightful comment that serves no purpose. Clearly, the fact that you won't deign to join in the discussion but point out the flaws of it anyway is proof of your intellectual superiority.

jcgadfly wrote:
You're an agnostic deist who claims to know god exists because you've seen him?

Ooookay...

Are you daft? Or can you just not read? I never claimed anything of the like. Your problem is that you assume I care about your opinion, and that I'm trying to prove God to you.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:Quote:I

Aedus wrote:
Quote:
I understand that you've decided to never consider an alternative to this strange false trichotomy. I've already presented several alternatives, including the combination of "accidental" and "created", or "eternal" and "accidental", which breaks the trichotomy instantly.

The first combo falls in the created category regardless of whether it's accidental, and the second combo is redundant.

So why do you consider it necessary that the universe is created, when you don't know if it was created by accident (and thus without a design)?

Quote:
In my example, Australia would have been a mere superstitution until you actually went there. Just like you could consider a God a mere superstition until you've seen him.

But it's not the same at all. Australia is a physical place. I've known lots of people who go to Australia and describe it the same as others, and because it's a physical location, I have evidence that such a place exists. I don't have perfect and exhaustive knowledge that Australia exists, but that's not necessary for an empirical understanding of a physical location.

God isn't a physical anything, and is consistently presented as something for which there can be no evidence. There is a big difference between something that is physical, to which evidence can be applied, and something for which no evidence can be applied.

Aedus wrote:
How do you know we wouldn't be able to detect God if he weren't physical? That's a pure assumption. Science can indirectly detect lots of things that aren't immediately tangible.

I'm willing to entertain indirect evidence as well, but to what would we apply evidence? You have no testable hypothesis. Implicit in the idea of God is that God is untestable.

Aedus wrote:
You're basically saying that it is harder to detect God than aliens. What proof do you have of this idea?

Just logic. If you're suggesting that alien life is somewhere in the universe, then there's at least a possibility that we'd be able to detect it. Not so with God, which is somehow non-physical. What makes God, then, any different from figments of our imagination?

Aedus wrote:
Maybe we'll be able to create a device that can detect extradimensional beings before we can find a way to escape our solar system and start searching for ET life? This idea that ET life exists and it would be easier to detect it than God is just a bunch of unfounded assumptions.

It's your assertion that beings can "exist" in "other dimensions", but that strikes me as highly imaginative, rather than something established. If we're detecting physical things, then we know how to do that already. It's an easy process. But you're suggesting that your conception of God involves extra-dimensional existence, I don't know what to tell you, because you haven't detailed that possibility.

Aedus wrote:
No, I'm an agnostic deist.

So ... you know something started the universe, but you don't know what. Except that it's extra-dimensional. Or something.

Aedus wrote:

So what am I supposed to say here? You can check out my other thread I made earlier if you want to look at my reasons, but you already think my 3-4 assumptions aren't much of an argument, no matter what, despite the fact that assumptions aren't arguments.  This little conversational path here has no potential for further dialog.

Your assumptions are just bald assertions, they're not founded in anything. If you maybe argued for ... something, then we'd have a discussion. If you're only willing to make bald assertions, then you're right: there isn't much potential for dialogue.

Aedus wrote:
Honestly, I consider these pretensions to "a need for evidence" a complete crock. What is your opinion on theoretical physicists that craft things such as string theory, etc?

That's creating a mathematical model. It's not presenting something as fact when it's not. I would need evidence to confirm string theory. So would the people working on string theory! The only reason Einstein isn't just some crazy mathematician is that his math matched the evidence.

Aedus wrote:
They deal with no part of the observable universe and their ideas have no evidence whatsoever. Should we classify their findings in the superstition category? Perhaps these guys aren't real scientists according to you guys? You'll forgive me if I don't buy into this flawed philosophy.

But that's not what I'm saying. When theoretical physicists make a mathematical model, they don't pretend to have found the final word on everything, they're trying to advance understanding. They're unsatisfied with the current models, so they propose a new one.

What you're saying is that you don't like the current models, therefore magic. It's completely different. When I say your God is magic, what I mean is that it magically disappears under the most basic scrutiny.

What is it made of? Nothing.

What differentiates it from a figment of the imagination? Nothing.

With a mathematical model, the idea is that it will match quantitatively with observation. In the case of God, you have something defined as unmeasurable. The difference is one of total opposition.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:Thomathy - thank

Aedus wrote:

Thomathy - thank you for the insightful comment that serves no purpose. Clearly, the fact that you won't deign to join in the discussion but point out the flaws of it anyway is proof of your intellectual superiority.

jcgadfly wrote:
You're an agnostic deist who claims to know god exists because you've seen him?

Ooookay...

Are you daft? Or can you just not read? I never claimed anything of the like. Your problem is that you assume I care about your opinion, and that I'm trying to prove God to you.

The problem is you don't read what you post (or you lie about it when someone calls you on it).

You've made all manner of "knowledge of God" claims iin your posts and fall back on "agnostic deism" when you're busted.

I also find it interesting that you claim agnostic deism while disallowing people to be agnostic atheists.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You've made

jcgadfly wrote:

You've made all manner of "knowledge of God" claims iin your posts and fall back on "agnostic deism" when you're busted.

I also find it interesting that you claim agnostic deism while disallowing people to be agnostic atheists.

Let's be frank: "agnostic deist" is ridiculous. You don't know what it is, but it's definitely a god? C'mon.
 

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Aedus
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:So why do

HisWillness wrote:
So why do you consider it necessary that the universe is created, when you don't know if it was created by accident (and thus without a design)?

Necessary? No. Likely? Yes. It's called a rational belief - and everybody has them.

Quote:
Just logic. If you're suggesting that alien life is somewhere in the universe, then there's at least a possibility that we'd be able to detect it. Not so with God, which is somehow non-physical.

No. We cannot detect life on other worlds that are farther away than Mars/Venus with our current technology, just like we cannot detect extradimensional beings with our current technology. Your assumptions are baseless - you just assume that we'll be able to create this technology for detecting life on farther away planets.

Quote:
It's your assertion that beings can "exist" in "other dimensions", but that strikes me as highly imaginative, rather than something established.

Then it should also strike you highly imaginative that ET life can exist on other worlds besides Earth. It's not something established.

Quote:
If we're detecting physical things, then we know how to do that already. It's an easy process. But you're suggesting that your conception of God involves extra-dimensional existence, I don't know what to tell you, because you haven't detailed that possibility.

This does not follow at all. Just because we can detect physical things does not mean we can detect life on farther-away worlds. That's like saying that just because I can lift 30 pounds I can also lift a car. Your assumptions are just bald assertions

HisWillness wrote:
That's creating a mathematical model. It's not presenting something as fact when it's not. I would need evidence to confirm string theory. So would the people working on string theory!

But there is no such evidence. Should you then, not dwell on string theory a moment longer because it has no evidence? What if scientists tried this with everything? Where would we be now?

HisWillness wrote:
The only reason Einstein isn't just some crazy mathematician is that his math matched the evidence.
So again, do you consider current theoretical physicists to just be crazy mathematicians? They have no evidence to match their ideas against.

HisWillness wrote:
But that's not what I'm saying. When theoretical physicists make a mathematical model, they don't pretend to have found the final word on everything, they're trying to advance understanding. They're unsatisfied with the current models, so they propose a new one.

Some of these models on ultimate origins are contradicting with other models derived through math, and none are backed up by evidence. For all intents & purposes they are as testable right now as God's own existence is. To deny this fact is to commit to double standards.

Quote:
What you're saying is that you don't like the current models, therefore magic.

As I've said before, I doubt there will ever be any evidence found for God. But it does not matter how many models are made or how satisfactory they are - the issue of ultimate origins will inevitably yield something that is eternal, whether it is God or the quantum vacuum or the multiverse. You have this hangup that God needs to work in the natural world or leave behind evidence that he made it.

Quote:
I'm willing to entertain indirect evidence as well, but to what would we apply evidence? You have no testable hypothesis. Implicit in the idea of God is that God is untestable.

Testable hypothesis: go back in time to before universe was created and look for indirect evidence of a creator on extra dimensions or whatever other plane of existence the creator works on. There you go. This is just as plausible right now as testing hypotheses for multiverse theories. So what does your "constant need for evidence no matter what" philosophy bring you exactly? If I did things your way I would give up and go home because multiverse theories are not testable. Why advocate intellectual laziness?

jcgadfly wrote:
You've made all manner of "knowledge of God" claims iin your posts and fall back on "agnostic deism" when you're busted

Are you even remotely following this thread? How was I busted? Will just asked me if I had exhaustive knowledge of the universe and was 100% confident in my claim, to which I replied no. I could ask you the same thing about any other scientific theory. What does that even prove?

jcgadfly wrote:
I also find it interesting that you claim agnostic deism while disallowing people to be agnostic atheists.

Fine, people can be agnostic atheists, I misunderstood some aspects of the definition at first - but this lack of belief definition is still bullshit.

HisWillness wrote:
Let's be frank: "agnostic deist" is ridiculous. You don't know what it is, but it's definitely a god? C'mon

It's bad enough that half you guys don't understand the real definition of atheism, but agnosticism as well? Agnosticism is just disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge. There are many agnostic theists. It's really a simple concept: "I have no claim of ultimate knowledge, but here is what I think it is".


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Aedus wrote:Thomathy - thank

Aedus wrote:

Thomathy - thank you for the insightful comment that serves no purpose. Clearly, the fact that you won't deign to join in the discussion but point out the flaws of it anyway is proof of your intellectual superiority.

Oh, please.  Intellectual superiority?  You don't have to put words in my mouth, but thanks. 

Why is it that I should deign to join in on this conversation?  You've gone from an assertion that atheists are really theists to an argument with Will and jcgadfly about nothing.  (Don't worry, Will knows it's about nothing; his feelings won't be hurt.)  What started as a game in semantics spurred from some ridiculous idea of 'correct etymological definitions' (what is that?) and an assertion (arbitrary at that) that common usage should rather define words has become a back and forth with you defending a proposition you have flat out refused to define or to offer evidence for without actually making any useful rebuttals. 

The fact that I won't deign to join the discussion (and I have not pointed out flaws as such, though they are that, but rather remarked on my observation of your obfuscation, confusing questions, quibbles over semantics and general sophistry) is proof that I won't deign to join the discussion.  In case you didn't get the general impression from my first post, I think this discussion is pointless.  Certainly engaging you in this discussion is pointless and I suspect that you're going to prove me right.  Please, continue.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."