We may never know (faith and wonder)

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
We may never know (faith and wonder)

There has been plenty of discussion of faith lately on this board.

 

I'll start by saying wonder is human nature. Hell, it is the very base of science! Many scientific discoveries worked on wonder.

'I wonder why the sky is blue?', or

'I wonder why diamonds are hard?'

 

In essence, science starts from wonder and works up, trying to figure everything out. That is the essence of science.

 

However, science can only go so far. it may not explicity explain everything, every little detail, and even if they come up with mathematical matter, it may not be testable. For example, the energy of the Big Bang was over 10^20 Gev. We may never get the technology to reproduce the effects, or even begin to understand exactly what happened due to the fact physics breaks down at these imense energies. We may never be able to harness negative energy via the casmir effect (bring two conducting plates to 10^-33 m of seperation.)

 

Many atheists including Dawkins in the God Delusion say just because we may never know things such as where did the laws of physics come from? Or why are the universal constants like they are? doesn't mean we should insert a God, that is presumbly more complex than the issues themselves.

 

To me personally, I don't like this approach. It seems to come off as 'Give up. We can't figure it out.' I think this is counter productive to science. We cannot and should not dismiss a claim simply because it is an argument from wonder.

 

Even if we do put everything into a nice little formula, the interpretation of those facts, are still from wonder, and we cannot help it. As with any young child whose every second question is 'why?'.

 

I think this is the right approach we should be questioning, not only the facts, but theinterpretation of the facts.

 

So, I guess to sum it up, even if you teach logic/science in every school, and there was no creation or ID, there will still be Theism. Why?

Because it is human nature to wonder.

 

 

 

{edit:fixed spelling error}


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'd argue that faith

I'd argue that faith threatens the tentativeness of wonder, in favor of an unjustified certainty. I wonder things because my knowledge has its limits. I'll often wonder something that does have an answer; before I find that answer, should I sanctify my first impressions of what the answer may be? Or avoid the answer because it will deprive me of wonderment?

Also, "interputation?" Is that a specialized word, or slang? I can't find a definition of it.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   To me

Quote:

 

To me personally, I don't like this approach. It seems to come off as 'Give up. We can't figure it out.' I think this is counter productive to science. We cannot and should not dismiss a claim simply because it is an argument from wonder.

It's the exact opposite.  "God" doesn't explain anything.  It is simply a new word for "I don't know."

Scientists keep looking for the answers.  If they run across anything god-like, I'm sure they'll mention it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'd argue

magilum wrote:

I'd argue that faith threatens the tentativeness of wonder, in favor of an unjustified certainty. I wonder things because my knowledge has its limits. I'll often wonder something that does have an answer; before I find that answer, should I sanctify my first impressions of what the answer may be? Or avoid the answer because it will deprive me of wonderment?

 

 

 Yes, but my argument is that wonder is good until we can find the knowledge. But, as I said what if we can't aquire that knowledge? It may be temporary unavailable, but the point is that until it is available, the wonder is justified.

For example, we can wonder about alien life. From the looks of it, we may never know whether or not there are aliens within our life time. But is it wrong to wonder about it?

 

Quote:
 

Also, "interputation?" Is that a specialized word, or slang? I can't find a definition of it.

I meant 'interpretation' 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Allowing religion to tell

Allowing religion to tell us ANYTHING about reality is the same as throwing our hands in the air and saying, "Well I guess this is how it happened."

I refuse to follow that idea.

Whenever scientists say that they don't know everything about something it is obvious that they really mean they don't know everything about something yet.

Allowing faith to take over is the same as stopping the study of proof and the goal of understanding reality.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:

 

To me personally, I don't like this approach. It seems to come off as 'Give up. We can't figure it out.' I think this is counter productive to science. We cannot and should not dismiss a claim simply because it is an argument from wonder.

It's the exact opposite. "God" doesn't explain anything. It is simply a new word for "I don't know."


 

 

Now, when you say 'God doesn't explain anything', do you mean in science?  I agree. I don't need to invoke God to explain something in science. I don't need God to explain how this computer works, or how stars are formed. 

 

I do use God to explain the why of existance though. 

 

What I meant by that comment  is that I don't like the approach of:

'X is not yet justified by science. Stop wondering about X.'

 

 

Quote:

Scientists keep looking for the answers.

Yes, I know. In fact, the looking for answers is where the wondering comes in in the first place.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Many atheists including Dawkins in the God Delusion say just because we may never know things such as where did the laws of physics come from? Or why are the universal constants like they are? doesn't mean we should insert a God, that is presumbly more complex than the issues themselves.

 

To me personally, I don't like this approach. It seems to come off as 'Give up. We can't figure it out.

Bullshit! Typical of the theist when called on an absurdity to mimic the skeptics objection. It is quite the reverse, theism teaches you to accept a prepackaged answer.

The theist puts a cap on knowlege by saying "God did it". In your case, "A universal conciousness did it". Neither of wich has any evidence.

The atheist faces reality while still trying to expand the limits of knowlege. But we dont delude ourselves thinking the species time will continue indefinatly. On the contrary,theists think that they outlive themsleves after they die. I am not talking about the memory of a dead person. I am talking about live people who think somehow they continue beyond worm food or energy transfer.

If we had forever to learn everthing, we could, but we dont. I dont see that as giving up. I see that as a NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Lets enjoy the ride, try to expand it as long as possible.

The atheist says, lets know as much as we can. The theist has already precluded themselves from expansion by incerting a conclusion.

The worst part of theism is that it is myth based in its guesses. Good scientific method should follow with self correction. Theism adapts to marketing. Scientific method is not dependant on marketing, but solid data. You dont have to sell gravity by offering a coupon "buy one get one free".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
magilum wrote:

I'd argue that faith threatens the tentativeness of wonder, in favor of an unjustified certainty. I wonder things because my knowledge has its limits. I'll often wonder something that does have an answer; before I find that answer, should I sanctify my first impressions of what the answer may be? Or avoid the answer because it will deprive me of wonderment?

 

 

 Yes, but my argument is that wonder is good until we can find the knowledge. But, as I said what if we can't aquire that knowledge? It may be temporary unavailable, but the point is that until it is available, the wonder is justified.

For example, we can wonder about alien life. From the looks of it, we may never know whether or not there are aliens within our life time. But is it wrong to wonder about it?

 

Quote:
 

Also, "interputation?" Is that a specialized word, or slang? I can't find a definition of it.

I meant 'interpretation' 

Wonder is fine, no problems with at all, as long as we understand that it's distinct from faith.

You had me re-reading this several times:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=interputation 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Allowing

Watcher wrote:

Allowing religion to tell us ANYTHING about reality is the same as throwing our hands in the air and saying, "Well I guess this is how it happened."

 

 

No, it's ""Well I guess this is why it happened."

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit! Typical of the theist when called on an absurdity to mimic the skeptics objection. It is quite the reverse, theism teaches you to accept a prepackaged answer.

 

No, religion requires you accept a pre-packaged answer. I'm talking about God, not religion.

 

Quote:
 

The theist puts a cap on knowlege by saying "God did it". In your case, "A universal conciousness did it". Neither of wich has any evidence.

 

I'm not trying to 'cap' knowledge. Quite the contrary.

 

 

 

Quote:

The atheist faces reality while still trying to expand the limits of knowlege. But we dont delude ourselves thinking the species time will continue indefinatly. On the contrary,theists think

 

What? 

 

Quote:
 

If we had forever to learn everthing, we could, but we dont. I dont see that as giving up. I see that as a NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

 Even if everything was knowable, the point was we may never know in our life time.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The atheist says, lets know as much as we can. The theist has already precluded themselves from expansion by incerting a conclusion.

 

 No, 'inserting a conlcusion'  does not prevent expansion.

 

Quote:
 

. Scientific method is not dependant on marketing, but solid data. 

 

Exactly, science must have data. Use data when available. If not, then if you want to know, you must use wonder. 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Science never says "Stop

Science never says "Stop wondering about X," except possibly in situations that have been very well investigated and widely held to be known to great certainty (e.g. people don't really wonder about if gravity exists because it's pretty clear that it does).

The presence of god does promote people to stop wondering because they are satisfied with "I'm not capable of understanding god's plan, but I trust that he has one."

If you know of an area of science where people are encouraged to "stop wondering" please let us know.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I actually have to give

I actually have to give Pineapple credit on this one.  I believe this is the first time I've seen a fallacy of equivocation between wonder and faith.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Exactly, science

Quote:
 

Exactly, science must have data. Use data when available. If not, then if you want to know, you must use wonder.

Get back to me when you are able to outgrow your "Leave it to Beaver" view of the world.

A sense of "awe" should not include absurdity. I find alot of things amazing, but I dont make shit up because I like it. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I

Hambydammit wrote:

I actually have to give Pineapple credit on this one. I believe this is the first time I've seen a fallacy of equivocation between wonder and faith.

 

 

I'm saying wonder can lead to faith.

 

Many Theists wonder where everything came from and insert God. That is their faith is a product of their wonder.

 

I thought I made that clear in my last statement. I said there will always be Theism, because people will always wonder the why. And that wondering gets them to believe in God.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I read it as 'there will

I read it as 'there will always be arguments from ignorance.' I don't see another way to interpret it, because faith is a conclusion it ends wonder. Saying it answers why is begging the question.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

I actually have to give Pineapple credit on this one. I believe this is the first time I've seen a fallacy of equivocation between wonder and faith.

 

 

I'm saying wonder can lead to faith.

 

Many Theists wonder where everything came from and insert God. That is their faith is a product of their wonder.

 

I thought I made that clear in my last statement. I said there will always be Theism, because people will always wonder the why. And that wondering gets them to believe in God.

You deserve your title Captian, but your suffex should be "Obvious".

Again, DUH, it is in human nature to guess, but if you were to chart all the guesses every human made in human history, MOST GUESSES ARE BAD! Life is a crapshoot, sometimes we figure out how to improve, but most of the time most of the people will fail, just like all sperm but one fertilize the egg. That is not pessimistic. That is facing reality in order to possibly improve the odds.

Which proves Dawkins point that we tend to, just like the moth falsely try to navigate by the light of a lightbulb vs the moonlight. Theism is a missfire. It is a bad guess that we havent evolved yet to discard. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: Science never

Fish wrote:

Science never says "Stop wondering about X,"

 

Perhaps I should have worded it better.  Science does encourage wonder, but it does say 'Stop saying things about X. We don't know what happened.' 

 

 

Magilum wrote:

I read it as 'there will always be arguments from ignorance.' I don't see another way to interpret it, because faith is a conclusion it ends wonder. Saying it answers why is begging the question.

That is why I think that both atheists/Theists should be agnostics. Because, once it gets to 'I know for sure God does/doesn't exist' your point about it taking away from wonder is valid.

This is one of the issues I've had with organized religion.

 

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

I actually have to give Pineapple credit on this one. I believe this is the first time I've seen a fallacy of equivocation between wonder and faith.

I'm saying wonder can lead to faith.

Many Theists wonder where everything came from and insert God. That is their faith is a product of their wonder.

I thought I made that clear in my last statement. I said there will always be Theism, because people will always wonder the why. And that wondering gets them to believe in God.

The equivocation you are committing is that wonder is equal to faith (perhaps you already knew, but I wanted to spell it out for my own benefit).

The problem is that faith is an end to wonder (something that the other replies have also been saying).

If faith is not an end to wonder, then god is not an answer, and the belief in god is completely unfounded (i.e. it serves no purpose, which is the point the person who said "god doesn't explain anything" was making).

Consider your child analogy:

The child asks "why?" You reply "god." If the child says "oh" and accepts god as the answer, then the wonder has been ceased. No new investigation is conducted by the child. If the child again asks "why?" then god has not explained anything, and it is a useless concpet (at least in terms of providing an explanation).

Simply put, what is the difference between answering "god" and "nobody knows yet", except that one answer creates an opportunity for an end of inquiry?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Allowing religion to tell us ANYTHING about reality is the same as throwing our hands in the air and saying, "Well I guess this is how it happened."

 

 

No, it's ""Well I guess this is why it happened."

...Do you really mean that?  What do you mean by saying that?  How are you catogorizing what 'how' and 'why' differ or don't differ?

Not only that but you agree that 'how' is a bad part of my argument but "I guess" is perfectly fine?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Fish wrote:

Science never says "Stop wondering about X,"

 

Perhaps I should have worded it better.  Science does encourage wonder, but it does say 'Stop saying things about X. We don't know what happened.' 

 

 

Magilum wrote:

I read it as 'there will always be arguments from ignorance.' I don't see another way to interpret it, because faith is a conclusion it ends wonder. Saying it answers why is begging the question.

That is why I think that both atheists/Theists should be agnostics. Because, once it gets to 'I know for sure God does/doesn't exist' your point about it taking away from wonder is valid.

This is one of the issues I've had with organized religion.

 

 

I think you may be begging the question, here assuming god questions have special validity over other speculative ideas. In the scheme of things, the god question has been used to fill in for many points of human ignorance, and slapped down in each field we've been able to inform ourselves in. I think its failure to explain previous questions hurts its credibility as an explanation for more sophisticated ones. Our wonder, ignorance, has been pushed so far into the abstract, that god, too, has become an abstract idea -- which makes it sound more credible than it perhaps should. It wasn't always so, though; the idea used to have a physical presence, it used to be defined by miracles and extraordinary suspensions of everyday experience. I know you haven't used this argument, but if you look at something like TAG, I think the popularity of that argument supports my position; that most religious arguments started with the extraordinary, and then that didn't materialize, were forced to take credit for the ordinary.

I understand your point about agnosticism, but I think the god question comes from tradition, or anthropomorphism, rather than coming to use through speculation. I think the question precedes and imposes itself on speculation.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: ...Do you

Watcher wrote:

...Do you really mean that? What do you mean by saying that? How are you catogorizing what 'how' and 'why' differ or don't differ?

Not only that but you agree that 'how' is a bad part of my argument but "I guess" is perfectly fine?

 

I'm saying 'how' and 'why' are two different questions. How life got started on Earth is a matter of bio-chemistry. Why is a matter of Theism.

 

magilum wrote:

I think you may be begging the question, here assuming god questions have special validity over other speculative ideas. 

Others such as?

 

 

As for 'begging the question'  I don't think we can wonder that far into the unkown without doing it.

 

 

Quote:

In the scheme of things, the god question has been used to fill in for many points of human ignorance, and slapped down in each field we've been able to inform ourselves in. I think its failure to explain previous questions hurts its credibility as an explanation for more sophisticated ones.

Yes, but I'm trying to seperate from the 'God of the gaps' argument. I'm not trying to put God into the scientific explanation of the data, but rather the interpretation of it.  We should be using scientific data whenever it's available. 

 

Quote:

 

I understand your point about agnosticism, but I think the god question comes from tradition, or anthropomorphism, rather than coming to use through speculation. I think the question precedes and imposes itself on speculation.

 When you say 'tradition'  do you mean by being raised in a Theistic enviroment?

 

I personally believe people should arrive at Theism/atheism on their own terms.  Another issue I have with organized religion.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Fish wrote:

Science never says "Stop wondering about X,"

 

Perhaps I should have worded it better. Science does encourage wonder, but it does say 'Stop saying things about X. We don't know what happened.'

 

Magilum wrote:

I read it as 'there will always be arguments from ignorance.' I don't see another way to interpret it, because faith is a conclusion it ends wonder. Saying it answers why is begging the question.

That is why I think that both atheists/Theists should be agnostics. Because, once it gets to 'I know for sure God does/doesn't exist' your point about it taking away from wonder is valid.

This is one of the issues I've had with organized religion.

 

 

I dissagree.

People should be open to future discovery based on solid data=agnostic atheist. But should not be afraid of throwing out debunked claims=Thor, Isus, Osirus, Peter Pan.

"It is possible for a theist to be an agnostic theist= I dont know what is out there, but I think there is a god" 

And "I dont know what is out there, but I see no evidence for a god"

HOWEVER, no deity claim in human history or modern theology or even new ageism has any credibility. It is all myth based superstition.

IF and I see no need to do this, but to humor you for arguments sake ONLY, but if one were to look to the future the only way "god" should possibly be considered is to dicard all the bullshit myth of the past.

However, what we do know time after time in scientific history is that ceilings were hit and people atributed that "beyond the ceiling" to God. But only later to discover that what they thought was "super natural" was merely  unexplained prior.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm saying 'how' and 'why' are two different questions. How life got started on Earth is a matter of bio-chemistry. Why is a matter of Theism.

Yeah, 'how' and 'why' are two different words in the english language.  But what the fuck does that mean if the different words are used in the same context to mean the same thing for both of the words?

Question 1.) How did the tree collapse?

Answer 1.) A human cut it down with a chainsaw.

Question 2.) Why did the tree collapse?

Answer 2.) A human cut it down with a chainsaw.

I completely agree that how and why are two completely different words in the english language, but context is an EXTREMELY important factor.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"God" of any kind is

"God" of any kind is non-explanation for "how" or "why" questions. It is pure empty speculation, story-telling. Why did "God" come into existence, or do any particular thing? IOW, no actual 'knowledge' content whatsoever.

The idea that the 'ultimate cause', or reason for, some event must be greater than, or even comparable to, in some aspect, what it effects is a persistent misconception at the root of many Theistic ideas.

"Why" in the sense Capn SpikeyFruit seems to be using it is pretty meaningless outside the context of a sentient entity, one who can be asked "Why did you do that?". So in puuting the question this way he is actually assuming a particular answer, ie a God critter of some variety.

Why did this particular Universe come into existence? Why did a particular atom of uranium decay at a particular instant? The answer in both cases is quite plausibly that the ultimate random quantum 'twitchiness' at that point just happened to twitch over some threshhold level just enough to trigger the event.

IOW, the answer to "why" may be not particularly interesting, even if we could find it. Alternatively, if you look at the chance that we came into existence from such an ultimately random event may provoke a different kind of wonder.

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


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Fish wrote:

Science never says "Stop wondering about X,"

Perhaps I should have worded it better. Science does encourage wonder, but it does say 'Stop saying things about X. We don't know what happened.'

When does science say that?


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

edited on second thought

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: HOWEVER, no

Brian37 wrote:

HOWEVER, no deity claim in human history or modern theology or even new ageism has any credibility. It is all myth based superstition.

IF and I see no need to do this, but to humor you for arguments sake ONLY, but if one were to look to the future the only way "god" should possibly be considered is to dicard all the bullshit myth of the past.

However, what we do know time after time in scientific history is that ceilings were hit and people atributed that "beyond the ceiling" to God. But only later to discover that what they thought was "super natural" was merely unexplained prior.

 

I actually agree here. The superstitions say 'God wants us to do this' etc..., which I disagree with.

 

That is why I said in another thread, that it should be about personal belief.

 

 

Watcher wrote:

Yeah, 'how' and 'why' are two different words in the english language.  But what the fuck does that mean if the different words are used in the same context to mean the same thing for both of the words?

Question 1.) How did the tree collapse?

Answer 1.) A human cut it down with a chainsaw.

Question 2.) Why did the tree collapse?

Answer 2.) A human cut it down with a chainsaw.

I completely agree that how and why are two completely different words in the english language, but context is an EXTREMELY important factor.

 

No, the 'why' in this case is why did he cut the tree down in the first place? To get firewood? His cat was stuck there?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

"God" of any kind is non-explanation for "how" or "why" questions. It is pure empty speculation, story-telling. Why did "God" come into existence, or do any particular thing? IOW, no actual 'knowledge' content whatsoever.

 

I disagree. Theism can add a knew way to look at the knowledge aquired. 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

"Why" in the sense Capn SpikeyFruit seems to be using it is pretty meaningless outside the context of a sentient entity, one who can be asked "Why did you do that?". So in puuting the question this way he is actually assuming a particular answer, ie a God critter of some variety.

 

Ahh the presupposition argument. I find the God 'answer' more satisfing than an alternate answer.

 

 

Fish wrote:

When does science say that?

 

In order to make a scientific claim, one must have the apporiate data to back it up. When that data is lacking, science discourages making a claim until the data is present.

 

However, in some cases the data cannot be presented. 

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
It's pretty clear that there

It's pretty clear that there is no one "correct" response to the questions of "why" and "how," and I believe Watcher was illustrating the point that they are vague and ambiguous enough to allow for a large range of valid answers to those questions.

What Pineapple seems to be doing is making the claim that the question "why is the sky blue?" includes both the question "what (physical properties) make the sky blue?" and "for what purpose is the sky blue (as opposed to some other color)", and that both questions should recieve equal inquiry, but science "stops" people from asking the second.

This is a flawed argument however. We know that the sky is blue, and so it natrually follows to ask what makes it appear that way.

However, there is no clear indication that the color of the sky has a purpose, and to ask "what is the purpose" requires that assumption. A more appropriate question would be to ask "does the sky have a purpose?" and the answer to that so far appears to be 'no'. (as an alternative, you could accept "none" as an answer to the question "what is the purpose", but this is no more a "stopping of wonder" than any other answer would be)


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Fish wrote:

When does science say that?

 In order to make a scientific claim, one must have the apporiate data to back it up. When that data is lacking, science discourages making a claim until the data is present.

 However, in some cases the data cannot be presented.

 

I don't think this is true.  Scientists often discuss possible claims that aren't backed up by data or evidence, as this is how new theories are formed in the first place.  If no evidence can be found to support them they are abandoned.  

If you know of a specific example, please let us know. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You did a lot of snipping

You did a lot of snipping on my post, so I'm not going to quote at this point. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, and my reply to it would be a reiteration of what I've already said.


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
personally, being agnostic,

personally, being agnostic, i'm not even going to attempt the question of God on such a complex level, i'm certainly not going to assume one way or the other, which is why it surprises me that pinapple has taken the side of deist.

 

what i would say is that we shouldn't put the Gods that people here on earth believe in as equal to a concious driving force of nature. and i think thats where theists get themselves in to trouble, by assuming that because they think there is a God, that it is the God they believe in


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:

To quote the Geico caveman comercial, "Yes, I do have a response........WHAT?"

 

I think what you want to say is, science doesnt have all the answers. But sceince is based on prior data which is what theories are built on. Science is not a process where you make shit up and call it a theory.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: No,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

No, the 'why' in this case is why did he cut the tree down in the first place? To get firewood? His cat was stuck there?

That line of thinking only works if you first insist that something made a conscious decision to do something.  Why did life begin?  It just fucking happened with no planned forethought.  How did life begin? Chemical soup, lightning...

I'll admit to you that it would be very easy for you to make me believe that some supernatural entity created the universe.  Only your explanation would have to be at least 10 times more intelligent and convincing that any religion humanity knows of.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
We've been over this

We've been over this multiple times. I think I'm going to coin a new fallacy. I'll call it the "fallacy of scientific terms." Pineapple seems certain that because he uses scientific terms to explain his "I give up" answer, it must be true. After all, he uses the word, "multiverse" in his explanation of god. That makes it scientific, right?

In his infinite consciousness explanation of god, he still makes an unfounded leap by presupposing consciousness, which he can't explain other than to say, "It's conscious. That's how it's conscious."

I suspect that over the next decade or two, we'll see a lot more fallacies of scientific terms. God has gotten backed much farther into a corner in the last few years as more people have become aware of the epistemological problems with supernatural. People are going to have to start using scientific terms to try to explain him. Of course, they're still going to commit the same fallacies. They'll just be using bigger words to do it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Magilum wrote: You did a

Magilum wrote:

You did a lot of snipping on my post, so I'm not going to quote at this point. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, and my reply to it would be a reiteration of what I've already said.

 

Sorry, you're not the only one making points here. I'll go over your post in more detail later, but for now I want to respond to others. 

 

 

 

Fish wrote:

However, there is no clear indication that the color of the sky has a purpose, and to ask "what is the purpose" requires that assumption. A more appropriate question would be to ask "does the sky have a purpose?" and the answer to that so far appears to be 'no'. (as an alternative, you could accept "none" as an answer to the question "what is the purpose", but this is no more a "stopping of wonder" than any other answer would be)

 

I guess the 'why is the sky blue' question can be re-worded as "What makes the sky blue.'

I'll admit that I choose my wording poorly in the OP.

 

As to the purpose of the sky being blue, I don't think everything  every minute detail has a purpose, but I do think there is a grander purpose.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

I think what you want to say is, science doesnt have all the answers. But sceince is based on prior data which is what theories are built on. Science is not a process where you make shit up and call it a theory.

Yes, it is built on data. Now, how are we going to figure out the things we don't have data for?

 

Watcher wrote:

That line of thinking only works if you first insist that something made a conscious decision to do something. 

 

So? Plug it in and see if it works.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

We've been over this multiple times. I think I'm going to coin a new fallacy. I'll call it the "fallacy of scientific terms." Pineapple seems certain that because he uses scientific terms to explain his "I give up" answer, it must be true. After all, he uses the word, "multiverse" in his explanation of god. That makes it scientific, right?

I use the scientific terms to justify the belief. I never said it proves it. 

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

In his infinite consciousness explanation of god, he still makes an unfounded leap by presupposing consciousness, which he can't explain other than to say, "It's conscious. That's how it's conscious."

 

I never said 'It's conscious. That's how it's conscious'

 

I said consciousness is processing data. That's how it's 'conscious'. 

 

 

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Watcher wrote:

That line of thinking only works if you first insist that something made a conscious decision to do something. 

 

So? Plug it in and see if it works.

Everything works without adding more complexity.

There is no need to plug it in.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess the 'why is the sky blue' question can be re-worded as "What makes the sky blue.'

As to the purpose of the sky being blue, I don't think everything every minute detail has a purpose, but I do think there is a grander purpose.

So what caused you to stop wondering about the purpose of the color of the sky?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I think you

magilum wrote:

I think you may be begging the question, here assuming god questions have special validity over other speculative ideas. In the scheme of things, the god question has been used to fill in for many points of human ignorance, and slapped down in each field we've been able to inform ourselves in. I think its failure to explain previous questions hurts its credibility as an explanation for more sophisticated ones. Our wonder, ignorance, has been pushed so far into the abstract, that god, too, has become an abstract idea -- which makes it sound more credible than it perhaps should. It wasn't always so, though; the idea used to have a physical presence, it used to be defined by miracles and extraordinary suspensions of everyday experience. I know you haven't used this argument, but if you look at something like TAG, I think the popularity of that argument supports my position; that most religious arguments started with the extraordinary, and then that didn't materialize, were forced to take credit for the ordinary.

I understand your point about agnosticism, but I think the god question comes from tradition, or anthropomorphism, rather than coming to use through speculation. I think the question precedes and imposes itself on speculation.

 

I think what you're saying is 'why put in God into the equation in the first place'?

 

Because, for me personally, I wonder 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

Some may say that begs the question of rather 'nothing' is the natural state of things, but I have yet to see a decent explanation.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: Cpt_pineapple

Fish wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess the 'why is the sky blue' question can be re-worded as "What makes the sky blue.'

As to the purpose of the sky being blue, I don't think everything every minute detail has a purpose, but I do think there is a grander purpose.

So what caused you to stop wondering about the purpose of the color of the sky?

Because it wouldn't matter if it was blue, green or whatever. That question is just a drop in the ocean.

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
magilum wrote:

I think you may be begging the question, here assuming god questions have special validity over other speculative ideas. In the scheme of things, the god question has been used to fill in for many points of human ignorance, and slapped down in each field we've been able to inform ourselves in. I think its failure to explain previous questions hurts its credibility as an explanation for more sophisticated ones. Our wonder, ignorance, has been pushed so far into the abstract, that god, too, has become an abstract idea -- which makes it sound more credible than it perhaps should. It wasn't always so, though; the idea used to have a physical presence, it used to be defined by miracles and extraordinary suspensions of everyday experience. I know you haven't used this argument, but if you look at something like TAG, I think the popularity of that argument supports my position; that most religious arguments started with the extraordinary, and then that didn't materialize, were forced to take credit for the ordinary.

I understand your point about agnosticism, but I think the god question comes from tradition, or anthropomorphism, rather than coming to use through speculation. I think the question precedes and imposes itself on speculation.

 

I think what you're saying is 'why put in God into the equation in the first place'?

 

Because, for me personally, I wonder 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

Some may say that begs the question of rather 'nothing' is the natural state of things, but I have yet to see a decent explanation.

 

 

Ah, thanks for responding to the full text. 

I think it begs the question to assume that there's a why. We know 'purpose' as a function of consciousness, which, unless you're holding out evidence on me, is only demonstrated in animals such as ourselves. Purpose, as in intent, is distinct from action: we can do other than what we intend to do, and things can happen without an apparent goal. Whether a goal can be assumed of a seemingly unconscious action isn't informed by anything I'm aware of.

Not knowing whether there's a god (substitute it for any equivalent claim) is less important to me than understanding where the question came from in the first place. In the absence of any evidence (or internal consistency, or consistency across cultures, or even many adherents) supporting such a claim, I think the origin of it bears on its validity as a question. Why ask about gods? The question seems intrinsic to the species, but I think it's only one among our anthropocentric assumptions to figure intent into our observations, or to assume intent is even a meaningful concept outside the parameters of our experience.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Fish wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I guess the 'why is the sky blue' question can be re-worded as "What makes the sky blue.'

As to the purpose of the sky being blue, I don't think everything every minute detail has a purpose, but I do think there is a grander purpose.

So what caused you to stop wondering about the purpose of the color of the sky?

Because it wouldn't matter if it was blue, green or whatever. That question is just a drop in the ocean.

 

So then what's your point?  If you've given up because we can't figure it out and want to stop talking about why the sky is blue, then why do you complain that other people do? 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Coming in a bit late, but

Coming in a bit late, but I'll chip in, I suppose.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'll start by saying wonder is human nature. Hell, it is the very base of science! Many scientific discoveries worked on wonder.

'I wonder why the sky is blue?', or

'I wonder why diamonds are hard?'

 

In essence, science starts from wonder and works up, trying to figure everything out. That is the essence of science.

 

Science starts from wonder, but it works out its answers empiracally. Philosophy is also helpful to science, but not so much in finding the answers as much as it helps science to ask the right questions. So already we're missing our exit to theism road, it would seem.

Quote:

However, science can only go so far. it may not explicity explain everything, every little detail, and even if they come up with mathematical matter, it may not be testable. For example, the energy of the Big Bang was over 10^20 Gev. We may never get the technology to reproduce the effects, or even begin to understand exactly what happened due to the fact physics breaks down at these imense energies. We may never be able to harness negative energy via the casmir effect (bring two conducting plates to 10^-33 m of seperation.)

Many atheists including Dawkins in the God Delusion say just because we may never know things such as where did the laws of physics come from? Or why are the universal constants like they are? doesn't mean we should insert a God, that is presumbly more complex than the issues themselves.

To me personally, I don't like this approach. It seems to come off as 'Give up. We can't figure it out.' I think this is counter productive to science. We cannot and should not dismiss a claim simply because it is an argument from wonder.

I think you're missing Dawkin's point.

Nobody argues that science can't explain everything. We can't know whether or not this is true. All we know is that science has NOT YET explained everything, and certainly seems a long way from doing so. But we can still see in retrospect that science HAS EXPLAINED an amazing number of phenomena in the world around us. When was the last time theism provided an explanation? Theism simply acknowledges the answers discovered by science, nods in agreement, and stoically replies "Yeah, well god did it." Whether or not a god actually did do it, theism (or faith) is not a means to knowledge.

Faith is in the knowledge business like a barnacle is in the shipping industry. If you can sufficiently prove it with reason (science), then you don't need faith. The only way you need faith is if you show that reason (science, knowledge) is somehow ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of knowing the answers. But, as has been shown already, we don't know that we CAN'T know the answers, we only know that we don't yet have them. It seems more likely that there are too many questions and too little time rather than that we are simply incapable of knowing.

Like it or not, you are making an argument from ignorance.

Quote:

Even if we do put everything into a nice little formula, the interpretation of those facts, are still from wonder, and we cannot help it. As with any young child whose every second question is 'why?'.

I think this is the right approach we should be questioning, not only the facts, but theinterpretation of the facts.

So, I guess to sum it up, even if you teach logic/science in every school, and there was no creation or ID, there will still be Theism. Why?

Because it is human nature to wonder.

 

And what purpose would it serve to "interpret" empirical facts? Objective observations aren't like Shakespeare. There is no need to "interpret". A happened, which caused B, which caused C. End.

Your "why did it happen?" question (aka the "to what end/for what purpose did it happen" question) is a silly one. It's just a few steps away from the same mistake made from the first cause argument.

C happened.

Why? For what purpose?

No purpose. It was just a result of B.

Why did B happen? For what purpose?

It was just a result of A.

Why? For what purpose did A occur?

I don't know that yet, so it's only reasonable for me to suggest god set the whole thing in motion for a purpose that is beyond my understanding.

 

But to follow this line of thinking is to say that everything must have a teleology EXCEPT FOR GOD.

Why is god? What is god's purpose? Everything needs to exist for a reason except for god?

 

Plus the arguments you're already familiar with: "why" begs the questions, and "something instead of nothing" is presupposing that "something" is not the natural state of things.

 

And then add on the fact that even if this unknowable, undetectable god is out there (which still doesn't seem likely), then what good is it to talk about him? He obviously can't lead us to any knowledge or tell us anything about the universe. He's just kind of out there, undetectable, hovering, not doing anything. The sole purpose of your even bringing him up is so that you can say, "Wow..."

 

"God", in the way you are positioning the word, has no purpose to his existence other than to be marveled at.

 

The "why" approach once again fails to be a persuasive one.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Ah, thanks


magilum wrote:

Ah, thanks for responding to the full text.

I think it begs the question to assume that there's a why. We know 'purpose' as a function of consciousness, which, unless you're holding out evidence on me, is only demonstrated in animals such as ourselves. Purpose, as in intent, is distinct from action: we can do other than what we intend to do, and things can happen without an apparent goal. Whether a goal can be assumed of a seemingly unconscious action isn't informed by anything I'm aware of.

 

That is one of the problems, I can't 'prove' purpose. I can't give you data and then you would be forced to conclude that 'Yep, there's a purpose!'

 

 

 

magilum wrote:

Not knowing whether there's a god (substitute it for any equivalent claim) is less important to me than understanding where the question came from in the first place. In the absence of any evidence (or internal consistency, or consistency across cultures, or even many adherents) supporting such a claim, I think the origin of it bears on its validity as a question. Why ask about gods? The question seems intrinsic to the species, but I think it's only one among our anthropocentric assumptions to figure intent into our observations, or to assume intent is even a meaningful concept outside the parameters of our experience.

 You keep saying that it's a 'anthropocentric assumption.' Then how do you get past it? 

 

 

 

Fish wrote:

So then what's your point?  If you've given up because we can't figure it out and want to stop talking about why the sky is blue, then why do you complain that other people do?

 

 

Let me put it this way. Your car has a purpose. However, the colour of your car is irrelavent. Now do you see? 

 

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

Science starts from wonder, but it works out its answers empiracally. Philosophy is also helpful to science, but not so much in finding the answers as much as it helps science to ask the right questions. So already we're missing our exit to theism road, it would seem.

 

I have an 'exit road', if the data which I base my beliefs on is falsified, then my belief is falsified. That is if information can be destroyed, then it's the 'exit road'.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

Faith is in the knowledge business like a barnacle is in the shipping industry. If you can sufficiently prove it with reason (science), then you don't need faith. The only way you need faith is if you show that reason (science, knowledge) is somehow ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of knowing the answers. But, as has been shown already, we don't know that we CAN'T know the answers, we only know that we don't yet have them. It seems more likely that there are too many questions and too little time rather than that we are simply incapable of knowing.

Like it or not, you are making an argument from ignorance.

 

I'll be happy to accept the data once it comes in. But until it does, I'll still wonder.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

Why is god? What is god's purpose? Everything needs to exist for a reason except for god?

  I didn't say everything needs to exist for a reason, while, I suppose the universe can exist without reason, I see no reason why it doesn't have a purpose. 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"God" of any kind is non-explanation for "how" or "why" questions. It is pure empty speculation, story-telling. Why did "God" come into existence, or do any particular thing? IOW, no actual 'knowledge' content whatsoever.

 

I disagree. Theism can add a knew way to look at the knowledge aquired.

What 'knowledge are you talking about? Speculation doesn't become knowledge until it has some strong supporting evidence. Theism is pure make-believe. Sure, it is a particular filter for looking at reality, but it makes too many unjustified pre-suppositions - IOW it is more likely to lead you into the intellectual wilderness than to anything resembling 'knowledge'.

Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

 

"Why" in the sense Capn SpikeyFruit seems to be using it is pretty meaningless outside the context of a sentient entity, one who can be asked "Why did you do that?". So in puuting the question this way he is actually assuming a particular answer, ie a God critter of some variety.

 

Ahh the presupposition argument. I find the God 'answer' more satisfing than an alternate answer.

Which particular alternete answer did you have in mind?? Whatever, the obvious fact that you do find it more satisfying than what you assume our answer would be, simply tells us something about your thought processes, rather than anything about the nature of reality.

I, and I think most of us here, do not find 'God' even a real answer, let alone satisfying. I base this on contemplation and study of science and philosophy in the broadest sense for many decades, and observation of many cultures all over the world. What background of experience and/or study informs your judgement, that we should take note of your naked assertions?

This is the point: if you have something other than your personal speculation and what is 'satisfying' to you personally, then let's see it - we can study it scientifically. If not, you have nothing to give your ideas any more substance than anyone else's ideas.  

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


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:   I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

I have an 'exit road', if the data which I base my beliefs on is falsified, then my belief is falsified. That is if information can be destroyed, then it's the 'exit road'.

You're not basing your theism on data though. You're basing it on a combination of lack of data and amazement (wonder).

Unless, of course, you're trying to use "something exists" as a positive basis for indicating a god, which still begs the question all the three ways I mentioned before.

 

Quote:

 

I'll be happy to accept the data once it comes in. But until it does, I'll still wonder.

 

Like I said, you're not basing your belief on evidence, you're basing it on a lack of evidence. From your position, as long as man is not omniscient, you will always have a corner to point to so that you can say, "God must be there".

That's silliness. I've said it before: The only reason you have to believe is that you want to believe. 

 

Quote:


I didn't say everything needs to exist for a reason, while, I suppose the universe can exist without reason, I see no reason why it doesn't have a purpose.

 

So the universe doesn't exist for a purpose, but it has purpose? What?

It doesn't exist for a reason, but it has a reason for existing? What?

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Fish

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Fish wrote:

So then what's your point? If you've given up because we can't figure it out and want to stop talking about why the sky is blue, then why do you complain that other people do?

Let me put it this way. Your car has a purpose. However, the colour of your car is irrelavent. Now do you see?

You are extremely incorrect. My car is light green, because that's supposed to be the color that is most visible under all conditions.

Your arrogant assumption that there is no purpose lead you to believe that you didn't need to investigate if perhaps there was a purpose.

So again I ask, why are you allowed to give up wondering and stop talking about something, but yet complain when someone else does?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Fish.  Color

I agree with Fish.  Color of cars do matter.

I live in hot ass texas.  What color reflects the most sunlight/heat?

White.  So there is a reason for people living in hot areas of the world to have white cars.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: [ What

BobSpence1 wrote:
[

What 'knowledge are you talking about? Speculation doesn't become knowledge until it has some strong supporting evidence. Theism is pure make-believe. Sure, it is a particular filter for looking at reality, but it makes too many unjustified pre-suppositions - IOW it is more likely to lead you into the intellectual wilderness than to anything resembling 'knowledge'.

I'm not talking about it becoming knowledge, I'm talking about it adding on to  knowledge.

 

This reminds me of the C.S Lewis quote:

  "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but by it I see everything else."

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 


Which particular alternete answer did you have in mind?? Whatever, the obvious fact that you do find it more satisfying than what you assume our answer would be, simply tells us something about your thought processes, rather than anything about the nature of reality.

 

The alternative that there is no God? 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I, and I think most of us here, do not find 'God' even a real answer, let alone satisfying. I base this on contemplation and study of science and philosophy in the broadest sense for many decades, and observation of many cultures all over the world. What background of experience and/or study informs your judgement, that we should take note of your naked assertions?

 

My backround is in physics, so that's what I'm basing it off of. Wavefunctions, and information theory. 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

This is the point: if you have something other than your personal speculation and what is 'satisfying' to you personally, then let's see it - we can study it scientifically. If not, you have nothing to give your ideas any more substance than anyone else's ideas.

 

I'm not using science to prove it, I'm using science to justify it.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

You're not basing your theism on data though. You're basing it on a combination of lack of data and amazement (wonder).

 

Yes, I am. I am putting my belief up against the data and seeing if it will fit.

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

So the universe doesn't exist for a purpose, but it has purpose? What?

It doesn't exist for a reason, but it has a reason for existing? What?

That's not what I meant.

 

Fish wrote:

You are extremely incorrect. My car is light green, because that's supposed to be the color that is most visible under all conditions.

Your arrogant assumption that there is no purpose lead you to believe that you didn't need to investigate if perhaps there was a purpose.

So again I ask, why are you allowed to give up wondering and stop talking about something, but yet complain when someone else does?

 

Your car will still function (serve it's purpose) if it wasn't light green. Just as the sky will still function if it wasn't blue.

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I, and I think most of us here, do not find 'God' even a real answer, let alone satisfying. I base this on contemplation and study of science and philosophy in the broadest sense for many decades, and observation of many cultures all over the world. What background of experience and/or study informs your judgement, that we should take note of your naked assertions?

 

My backround is in physics, so that's what I'm basing it off of. Wavefunctions, and information theory.


 

 

Perhaps I should clarify:

 

I define consciousness as processing data. I find this is the basis of the universe. That is pretty much everything works on data exhange. This exchanging of data collapses wavefunctions, hence creating reality. 

All this is merely potiental (the wavefunctions) but by limiting it, the universe comes to form.

This is data processing is used to form everything including matter.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

You're not basing your theism on data though. You're basing it on a combination of lack of data and amazement (wonder).

 

Yes, I am. I am putting my belief up against the data and seeing if it will fit.

 

That's just an indirect way of saying "You haven't proven I'm not right, therefore I can assume that I am."

After all (excuse the borrowed argumentation), a teapot in orbit around Neptune would "fit" with science since physics does not indicate that such a thing would be impossible if a teapot were, in fact, out there. We haven't made enough observations of Neptune to know for absolute certain that there is no teapot---or even a teapot shaped rock for that matter!---in orbit around Neptune. It fits, but does that give us permission to believe it?

Like I said, since we are not omniscient and our observation of the universe is limited, it allows for the possibility  of countless, seemingly ridiculous propositions about what exists to be true. But we can speak of probability and rule out the majority of them. And for the rest (the saner ones), we would not be justified in believing them until we had at least a shred of positive evidence in its favor.

To use a more realistic example, many people believe that, given the vast size of the universe, that life has most likely arisen on more than one occassion; however, we haven't yet found any such life, although we have searched for it. Therefore, no one can say positively that there is life elsewhere until we have a reason for believing it. And even if there is life elsewhere, we have no reason to believe it is different from us in any way until we have a reason for believing so.

You have no reason for believing your god proposition is true. Your "reason" is "it fits".

Well, technically, so do giant polka-dotted penguin-like creatures on an unobserved planet in a far off galaxy, but that gives us no reason to believe it's true. That only tells us that there are things we don't know.

In order to prove you wrong, man would have to be omniscient. Your claim is not falsifiable and, therefore, not worth arguing about. You might as well be attaching a "times infinity" clause to the end of your proposition.

 

 

 

Quote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

So the universe doesn't exist for a purpose, but it has purpose? What?

It doesn't exist for a reason, but it has a reason for existing? What?

That's not what I meant.

 

Okay... so explain what you mean? 

 

Quote:
 

Your car will still function (serve it's purpose) if it wasn't light green. Just as the sky will still function if it wasn't blue.

 

 

That depends on your definition of "sky".

If you're talking about "sky" as in the thing that is blue and contains clouds, then it probably wouldn't still exist if it was another color, because that would mean that its composition had changed and probably would alter the life on earth completely, or cause it to vanish.

If you mean "sky" only in the sense that it means a layer of gas around the earth, then what you say would be true, but it would no longer be doing us a service in that case; it would be existing just because, which is what layers of gas around other planets seem to do.

 

Also, making any analogy between the universe and man-made devices is automatically fallacious. You're comparing the thing with its "purposeness" in question to something that obviously has purpose, therefore stacking the deck in your favor.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I, and I think most of us here, do not find 'God' even a real answer, let alone satisfying. I base this on contemplation and study of science and philosophy in the broadest sense for many decades, and observation of many cultures all over the world. What background of experience and/or study informs your judgement, that we should take note of your naked assertions?

 

My backround is in physics, so that's what I'm basing it off of. Wavefunctions, and information theory.


 

 

Perhaps I should clarify:

 

I define consciousness as processing data. I find this is the basis of the universe. That is pretty much everything works on data exhange. This exchanging of data collapses wavefunctions, hence creating reality.

All this is merely potiental (the wavefunctions) but by limiting it, the universe comes to form.

This is data processing is used to form everything including matter.

 

You're just redefining consciousness as a means to suggest your god's reality. It also ignores the obvious (and well-founded) proposition that there are different kinds of consciousness, and most of them are not remotely like human consciousness. Some forms of  consciousness can be as simple as a thermostat. That kind of "consciousness" does not argue well for a premeditated or even purposeful existence of the universe.

1. Consciousness is information processing.

2. All things in the universe "process information" in some way.

3. Therefore everything is conscious.

4. Therefore the universe formed due to "consciousness"

5. Therefore, a god?

 

I define one level of consciousness as the ability to process information. I define a higher level of consciousness as the ability to reflect on the decision made about the processed information. I define an even higher level of consciousness as the ability to reflect on the reflection of decisions made about processed information. To some higher levels of consciousness, I attribute the ability to consider actions before they take place, the ability to reflect on the premeditation of such acts, and, to even higher consciousnesses, the ability to reflect on the reflection of the premeditation of such acts.

When consciousness is defined by so limited a definition as the one you gave, it's a lot easier to use it as "the basis of the universe". But when you realize that there are different kinds of "consciousness" with different levels of complexity, it becomes a lot more difficult.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Your

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Your car will still function (serve it's purpose) if it wasn't light green. Just as the sky will still function if it wasn't blue.

1. My car will function without windows, headlights, a roof, a muffler, tires, etc. That doesn't mean that these things don't have a purpose.

2. What is the function of the sky?

3. Why are you allowed to give up wondering and stop talking about something, but yet complain when someone else does?