God of the Gaps

[Visbek]

I am assuming you have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you cannot come to "there are no gods" though logic.

Am I mistaken in that?

You completely ignored my post, and utterly failed to demonstrate that you have even a basic understanding of logic.

You are mistaken if you think I'm going to pay any further attention to your posts. 'Bye.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You completely ignored my post, and utterly failed to demonstrate that you have even a basic understanding of logic.

You are mistaken if you think I'm going to pay any further attention to your posts. 'Bye.

MY GUESS...would be that you WILL pay attention to my posts.

I suggest, with as much respect as possible...that YOU will know if you have read this note...and YOU will know if you paid no further attention to what I had to say.

If you are reading this...the question has been settled, whether I or anyone else here besides you can say.

Live with it. I hope you do eventually attain the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge what is going on with you.

In the meantime, my friend, I wish you a fine life.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The Cosmological Argument fails, because it's special pleading ("everything needs a cause, except this special thing over here")

That's a misunderstanding of both the fallacy of special pleading, and Cosmological arguments.

Some claim P is special pleading just in case:

Proposition P names some member x of some set A and claims that x has property ~F, where F is a criterion for inclusion in A.

So: "Byron is immortal" names Byron, a member of the set of men, one criterion for inclusion in which is mortality. But then the claim is that Byron lacks at least one property needed for inclusion in A. Given that we know Byron was a man, we should conclude he has the same property all men have, namely, mortality.

God isn't a member of any such set. If God exists, then God is the ultimate special case. Point: special things do exist, and we can know this through reasoning. It's possible to construct an argument to demonstrate the existence of a number (0) that is neither positive nor negative, and that has other unique properties. So there's no particular reason why Cosmological arguments are cases of special pleading.

Generally speaking, here's how I understand Cosmological arguments: We observe some property of some set of things or states of affairs X. Let members of the set be called x, and then we observe that any x perforce enters into relation Y with other objects with property x (for example, every event is caused by some other event). We then take note of the paradoxes of infinity--if there had been an infinite number of cause-effect pairs (assuming that causation has a temporal component), we would never be here and now. We are here and now, and so therefore something special, z, must exist but not be a member of X.

That seems pretty good to me. Maybe not quite sound--I suppose someone may object that Y-relations are not distributed in the right way, or alternately, that they don't really exist. The beef I have with that line is that it seems to have the consequence that the universe is fundamentally unintelligible. And if that is true, then we have no basis for science in the first place.

The problem for Cosmological arguments, of course, is that z isn't shown to be the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, or Pastafarian) God. On the other hand, it does seem that z cannot share very many properties with the members of X, so it's unlikely to be material in the usually understood sense, for example. Most especially, z might be natural in some sense of the word, but not natural in the sense that it could not be studied by science, even in principle.

As a final adendum, I would also point out that some Cosmological arguments are actually reductio ad absurdam arguments. When Aquinas says "all things need a cause," he's ultimately out to show that this proposition, in conjunction with another about finished infinite causal chains, results in a contradiction. He then goes on to say that the first premise must be false, but only false of some limited set.

Again, of course he cannot show what is in that set. There could be many gods. It could be Zeus. Who knows?

The Ontological Argument fails, because existence is not a predicate (per Kant)

Actually, that's not quite what Kant said. He said it's a special predicate, but the ontological argument treats it like a regular predicate. It's not clear to me he was correct, and anyway, surely you'll agree that because Kant said it isn't a good way to argue.

Argument From Design: Logically sound but factually incorrect. It is entirely possible for organisms to develop goals and exist without a conscious designer.

I don't want to get into this one. See Plantinga's analysis in Where the Conflict Really Lies.

What else ya got?

Ever heard of Lonergan's Proof for the Existence of God?

 

[ashurbanipal]

It must be wrong then

Not necessarily, but a wise person should find it suspect.

Of course, if you have a counter to why everything needs a cause except some white dude with a beard who can create a whole universe with the sweep of his hand, I'm all ears.

Sure, it's pretty simple to understand: everything physical needs a cause (even if matter has always existed, this is still the case)--that's just a matter of observation plus assumption of something like the intelligibility of physical events. But if everything tout court needs a cause, there would be nothing (paradox of infinity)--we would never get here if there were an infinite chain of causes stretching backward. Since we are here, something somewhere must not need a cause.

I didn't say that "anything or everything that cannot be explained by physics is supernatural." What I said was that by definition, that which is supernatural violates the laws of physics.

OK, so then to clarify: it seems to me we may be thinking of what the phrase "the laws of physics" denotes differently. I take the laws of physics to be all the currently accepted propositions held by physicists.

Do you take "the laws of physics" to denote whatever laws might be accepted by a completed physics? If so, you could be correct in your claim, though keep in mind the notion of a physical law is one that developed fairly recently, and before physics is finished it may be abandoned altogether.

They must be right, then.

Not necessarily, but if someone has said "X is natural, and X does Y," it's hardly a good way to argue against that proposition by starting off with "Since X is supernatural...".

Oh, wait, they're not. Souls are supernatural. They do not obey the laws of physics.

Why does that mean they are supernatural?

They are not held to be physical in nature. In fact, in most schemas, souls are held to be so radically non-physical that they constitute a completely separate ontological realm, in which the interactions are both affecting physical things (like neurons) yet are completely inscrutable and inexplicable. They are held to be completely intangible -- except when it's convenient to say they are not.

Why does any of that mean they are supernatural?

You mean, show you an experiment which proves that the laws of thermodynamics are true?

No. The laws of thermodynamics apply to open systems as well as closed ones. Therefore, I mean show me an experiment that demonstrates the universe is a closed system. If you cannot, then you have to admit the possibility the universe is an open system--that is, a system in which energy is either increasing or decreasing. That locally closed systems can be created wouldn't change the story.

Which leading physicists have set up an experiment to demonstrate that physics is not causally closed?

I have no idea. Why are you asking?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Last I heard, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. If you can genuinely prove that neural tissue is creating energy ex nihilo, then there's a Nobel prize in your future. So, good luck with that.

I don't expect a nobel prize, because I'm not relying on my experiments. But it's a well-accepted body of evidence, and I think it's direct evidence of substance dualism. Again, it was first demonstrated in 1911, and has been confirmed (by my count) several thousand times since--including several times in this decade by major university labs. The scientists who have confirmed it seem simply not to have grasped the implications of what they had found.

But as I stated: The problem is that he doesn't know jack about logic, yet is accusing me of ignorance on the subject. Hence the trout slap.

Well, sure, I get a little, er, technical when someone starts talking about logic. But then, I think one also has to acknowledge that just because someone doesn't have knowledge about a subject doesn't mean they don't understand something about it, or lack wisdom regarding it.

Or are you thinking of Duhem and Quine's idea that testing a scientific hypothesis requires a theoretical framework? I don't see that causing an issue for falsifiability.

Yeah, I should have been a little more clear, but I was writing in a hurry. Look: a theory is a list of statements all of which are members of set T. But T is arbitrary, and could be taken to include statements from other accepted theories or laws. It should be clear that any member of T that is thought to be contradicted by evidence can either be taken as false, or taken as true with ammendments to truth values assigned to other statements in the domain of science. In fact we do this all the time, and it's usually taken to be fairly mundane when we do. Did an experiment yield a weird outlier in the dataset? Must have been something wrong with the measuring apparatus, user error, hidden variable, something like that. There are more spectacular examples--Quine analyzed the history of the discovery of Pluto to prove the point.

The problem for falsifiability is that a claim can only be falsified if enough assumptions are made about the status of other claims. But since it will always be possible to preserve a claim by adjusting how we take other statements, falsifiability loses any real discriminatory power.

there is a character limit.

A rather frustrating one at that, seemingly designed to keep posts short and correspondingly shallow (most of the time).

Sorry, but that sounds like nonsense to me. There is no reason to be neutral about every unfalsifiable claim.

Sure there is, and it's a big one: neutrality is the ideal default attitude. Anything else is a product of bias, and the history of ideas tells us that bias is error.

I certainly don't have to be neutral when someone claims that the unfalsifiable thing has a causal effect on the world.

Well, no, but then it's not unfalsifiable, is it?

Russell's Teapot does not presume there is any evidence -- because if there was, we would then discuss the veracity and accuracy of that evidence. The hypothetical presumes that there is no particular reason to believe that the teapot is there.

The point in context is that someone who has seen the teapot, but cannot prove that to someone else, is still being rational by believing in the existence of the teapot.

Re-read my post. I certainly did point out ways that theism is illogical, irrational and incompatible with science.

And I argued against those ways.

 

[Visbek]

Some claim P is special pleading just in case:

Proposition P names some member x of some set A and claims that x has property ~F, where F is a criterion for inclusion in A.

Uh huh. Let's try it.

Anything that exists must have a cause.
God exists.
Therefore, God must have a cause. UNLESS we carve out a special exception for God.

Hmmmm....

God isn't a member of any such set. If God exists, then God is the ultimate special case.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like the very essence of special pleading.

Now, let me be clear: If you want to claim that your deity is an exception, that's fine. But in doing so, you are not making a logically sound argument, because you are saying that your cherished deity both a member of a set ("x = that which exists") and not subject to the properties of that set ("anything in set x must have a cause").

I.e. you're basically saying that your deity is not limited by the laws of logic. Which is fine -- but it's not a logically sound argument. It's carving out a special exception so that you can get to the conclusion that you wanted to produce all along.

Point: special things do exist, and we can know this through reasoning. It's possible to construct an argument to demonstrate the existence of a number (0) that is neither positive nor negative, and that has other unique properties. So there's no particular reason why Cosmological arguments are cases of special pleading.

Exceptions are not a problem... when there is a logical or axiomatic basis for it.

If there isn't a logical way to construct that exception, then you are compromising the consistency of the system, in which case any statement can be arbitrarily determined to be true or false.

In informal terms: Let's say we posit that the deity is not bound by the laws of logic, perhaps because the entity generated those laws in the first place. That's fine, except that if something is unbound by logic, then it is not restricted by the Law of Non-Contradiction, and cannot hold any properties whatsoever. E.g. "B = God is benevolent" relies on the ability of B to hold a stable truth-value, but that's not possible if B can be both true and false simultaneously.

I see no way to contain the explosion of inconsistencies or inability to ascribe properties to a deity that is not limited by logic, except by arbitrary declarations of fiat, which are often merely the result of motivated reasoning. (E.g. I want my deity to be benevolent, therefore He must be benevolent!) Thus, I'd say that logical arguments which declare that the deity is not limited by logic are inherently illogical and irrational.

Generally speaking, here's how I understand Cosmological arguments: We observe some property of some set of things or states of affairs X. Let members of the set be called x, and then we observe that any x perforce enters into relation Y with other objects with property x (for example, every event is caused by some other event). We then take note of the paradoxes of infinity--if there had been an infinite number of cause-effect pairs (assuming that causation has a temporal component), we would never be here and now. We are here and now, and so therefore something special, z, must exist but not be a member of X.

Generally speaking, here's how I understand cosmological arguments:

Someone starts with the idea that there must be a deity. For various reasons, they do not try to present empirical data, and thus try to construct logical arguments instead. The presenter then tries to reject inconvenient obstructions (like actual infinities), in order to make the otherwise impossible seem plausible. Of course, for the theist, the deity is not only a plausible condition, it's a required condition.

The problem for Cosmological arguments, of course, is that z isn't shown to be the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, or Pastafarian) God.

As noted previously, that's a separate issue, which IMO is mooted by those arguments not working in the first place.

Actually, that's not quite what Kant said. He said it's a special predicate, but the ontological argument treats it like a regular predicate. It's not clear to me he was correct, and anyway, surely you'll agree that because Kant said it isn't a good way to argue.

I'm not making an appeal to authority. I'm referring to his argument.

 

[Visbek]

Ever heard of Lonergan's Proof for the Existence of God?

Fortunately, no. I'll take cues from Spitzer's analysis,
http://www.magiscenter.com/pdf/Philisophical_Proof_of_God.pdf

1. If the real is completely intelligible, then God exists
2. The real is completely intelligible
3. Therefore God exists

Needless to say, that executive summary is way too brief.

Lonergan starts with the idea that the universe must have an uncaused cause. Thus, we're basically back at special pleading/earlier arguments. Surprise! But let's move on anyway. Spitzer:

...if there is not at least one uncaused reality that exists through itself in “all reality,” there would be absolutely nothing in existence. But this is clearly contrary to fact, and so there must exist at least one uncaused reality that exists through itself in “all reality.”

Of course, we could posit that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that we have no information what happened before the Big Bang (e.g. there could be infinite cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches), and that the change from the pre-BB singularity to our universe was the result of some random inexplicable quantum fluctuation. But what fun is that?

There is at least one other possibility here, namely that it is logically impossible for "nothingness" to exist. "Nothingness" is the absence of being. However, "nothing" cannot possibly hold any properties, because a total absence of being must include a total absence of properties as well, including consistency (or inconsistency!). Or, more bluntly: "non-existence exists" is a contradiction. I.e. perhaps there is no alternative to the existence of something.

Anyway. Lonergan posits that the First Cause must be intelligible, and is the last repository for an answer to all the questions about those causal chains. When we ask "why is it so?" the answer is "God wanted it so."

While this may satisfy a theist, the materialist has no obligation to see this as a sufficient answer. "God wanted the universe like so" does not tell us anything about It at all. It is a declaration by fiat that we can't ask any more questions once we get to God. How convenient.


Back to Spitzer:
If there must be a final and sufficient answer to the question “Why is it so?”, there must also be a final and sufficient answer to every other question (e.g. “What?”, “Where?”, “When?”, “How does it operate?” etc.), because the latter is grounded in (dependent on) the former. Without an ultimate cause of existence, there would be literally nothing to be intelligible.

Needless to say, the materialist doesn't have these requirements.

Perhaps there is no answer to "why does the universe exist" or "why can't matter be destroyed?" That's just how it is.

On one hand, this is unsatisfying, perhaps not an answer at all. Yet, it's the same answer the theist typically provides when confronted with the demand to explain why their deity exists, or its motivations: God exists because God exists. There is no rhyme or reason to the existence of God. It's just there. While that may work for some people, it sounds awfully superfluous to me.

On a side note: I don't see any reason why humans require "ultimate causes" to understand the operations of the world or the universe. I don't really need to know why energy cannot be created or destroyed, if there is no why; I only need to know that it can't be created or destroyed. Physics is still intelligible even if we do not presume that some conscious entity designed it to be so.


Unfortunately, character limits are kicking in. Sorry for the brevity, but the argument dissolves anyway into a God that can understand itself within itself, or falsities like we can't learn heuristics from empirical experiences, or "there can only be one uncaused reality" (which I assume clashes with the logically consistent MWI interpretation of QM), assertions of idealism, immaterial brains that have thoughts, and so on. Given that the argument ultimately relies on an unnecessary and illogical "uncaused cause," I'm OK with stopping here.

 

[Visbek]

Sure, it's pretty simple to understand: everything physical needs a cause (even if matter has always existed, this is still the case)--that's just a matter of observation plus assumption of something like the intelligibility of physical events. But if everything tout court needs a cause, there would be nothing (paradox of infinity)

Emphasis added.

Per post above: If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it is not paradoxical to assume it has always existed. It's just counter-intuitive.

And of course, accepting the Uncaused Cause presumes that God can violate the laws of physics at will. Which is not surprising, but does suggest that the concept of God clashes with the laws of thermodynamics.

OK, so then to clarify: it seems to me we may be thinking of what the phrase "the laws of physics" denotes differently. I take the laws of physics to be all the currently accepted propositions held by physicists.

I don't. We don't have a complete physics. I view the laws of physics to be a description of the various interactions of various types of matter. But do go on.

Not necessarily, but if someone has said "X is natural, and X does Y," it's hardly a good way to argue against that proposition by starting off with "Since X is supernatural...".

Or, it is completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that souls -- not brains or minds, but souls -- are natural phenomena, solely because some people incorrectly classify them as "natural."

The very idea of substance dualism asserts that the physical and spiritual are completely separate ontological realms. Souls are not material things that are affected by gravity or electromagnetism. Souls are not made up of atoms or electrons or forces. They are spiritual entities.

It seems to me that you're using some sort of non-standard or personal definition of "natural" and "supernatural." Pass.

No. The laws of thermodynamics apply to open systems as well as closed ones. Therefore, I mean show me an experiment that demonstrates the universe is a closed system....

I'll defer to Newton, and pretty much the entire scientific establishment, when I claim that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I don't know of any experiment that has ever shown the contrary. The closest anyone has seen is with virtual particles, which is (pardon my brevity) really more about the particle-wave duality rather than something popping out of thin air, and for reasons far too complex to explain here, do not violate the laws of physics.

At any rate: At a minimum, you'd need to demonstrate that neural cells can somehow react to a completely non-physical force, one that cannot possibly be examined any further, without somehow violating the laws of thermodynamics.

And no, I know of no "well-accepted body of evidence" which shows that organic or neural tissue exhibits some kind of surplus of energy that cannot possibly be explained by anything in physics. I can't find any evidence of any such experiments. All I have are your vague claims about it, which at the moment seems no more convincing than claims of spoon-bending or evidence of Bigfoot.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Lots of words. So little of import being said.

But of course...trying to arrive at "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...using reason, logic, or science...

...is bound to go nowhere.

IT CANNOT BE DONE...anymore that one can arrive at "there is a GOD" or "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none" using reason, logic, or science.

 

[Visbek]

I don't expect a nobel prize, because I'm not relying on my experiments. But it's a well-accepted body of evidence....

...that I've never heard of, and that you can't be bothered to name?

The problem for falsifiability is that a claim can only be falsified if enough assumptions are made about the status of other claims. But since it will always be possible to preserve a claim by adjusting how we take other statements, falsifiability loses any real discriminatory power.

Falsifiability has its limits, and again I did not say that falsifiability defines the borders of science.

What I'm pointing out is that when someone makes a radically unfalsifiable claim, no one is obligated to take it seriously.

More to the point, I don't see anything in the Duhem-Quine theory that justifies placing the burden of evidence on the one trying to refute an unfalsifiable claim.

To wit, let's consider three claims:
1) The sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
2) String theory is true.
3) Unicorns are real.

Per Hume, 1) is an induction (and per Duhem-Quine, only testable in a modifiable theoretical framework) and as such can never be as certain as "all bachelors are unmarried." Yet we can apply a basic Bayesian analysis, and say "the probability is above 99%." More critically, the hypothesis is eminently testable.

2) is obviously problematic. From a practical perspective, testing string theory is beyond our current ability, and perhaps permanently so. Should we be neutral on this topic? No. We want to investigate this, but high energy physics takes up tremendous amounts of resources, and there are competing theories whose advocates also want a piece of the pie. Unless we are going to punt on the fundamental questions of physics, neutrality is not an option. We should also note that no one went out of their way to design string theory to be untestable, it's just a consequence of the

3), on the other hand, is substantially different. We have no evidence that unicorns were real. There are no living examples, no fossils, descriptions are mythical. When we ask for living examples, the advocates claim they went extinct; when we ask for fossils, advocates claim their bones dissolve immediately upon death and leave no trace; when we ask about the myths, advocates say unicorns influenced human events but were never accurately recorded by historians.

I don't see why, given the circumstances, I am in any way required to treat "unicorns exist" neutrally.

It is also fairly obvious that people regard their deities as having a causal influence on the universe, if not daily life. Few people are such radical deists that they believe the deity totally abstains from interference in human life. Those who are would have little reason to argue the point in the first place, since the mystery of the Radical Deist Deity would be just as inconclusive and a dead-end as simply saying "that's how it is."

Hence, aside from the illogical status of deities and the incompatibility of the supernatural with what we now know about the world via science: Yes, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim; and materialists are not obligated to prove a negative.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Those hard-headed, unreasonable people who insist there is a GOD or who insist it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none...ought to own up to the fact that all they are doing is making a blind guess in that direction. It is "faith" and "belief" that gets them there...not reason, logic, or science. (Come to think of it...most of them do that.)

Those hard-headed, unreasonable people who insist there are no gods or who insist it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...ought to own up to the fact that all they are doing is making a blind guess in that direction. It is "faith" and "belief" that gets them there...not reason, logic, or science. (Almost none of them do that.)

 

[TheGoverness]

Those hard-headed, unreasonable people who insist there are no gods or who insist it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...ought to own up to the fact that all they are doing is making a blind guess in that direction. It is "faith" and "belief" that gets them there...not reason, logic, or science. (Almost none of them do that.)

Jesus Christ, not this again...

Why can't you realise that most atheists are also agnostics as well? We admit that we don't 100% know if there is a God or not, but due to the fact that we have not been presented with credible evidence, we lack a belief in a God. We don't deny that a God could exist, we just don't believe in one.

This is not a hard concept to understand. But apparently for you it is.

 

[RAMOSS]

Jesus Christ, not this again...

Why can't you realise that most atheists are also agnostics as well? We admit that we don't 100% know if there is a God or not, but due to the fact that we have not been presented with credible evidence, we lack a belief in a God. We don't deny that a God could exist, we just don't believe in one.

This is not a hard concept to understand. But apparently for you it is.

I personally find some discussions nonproductive. If there is nothing but the same response, no matter what the subject, sometimes, it's better to just let it go. Of course, I am told some people are masochistic, and like beating their heads against the wall.

 

[TheGoverness]

I personally find some discussions nonproductive. If there is nothing but the same response, no matter what the subject, sometimes, it's better to just let it go. Of course, I am told some people are masochistic, and like beating their heads against the wall.

In this case I can understand. Because time and time again, Frank continues to act like Atheism is a "belief system" and is based on "faith", and no matter what any of us do he just jams his fingers in his ears.

Ugh. I'll admit that it's tiring as **** going through this same conversation over and over again.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Jesus Christ, not this again...

Why can't you realise that most atheists are also agnostics as well? We admit that we don't 100% know if there is a God or not, but due to the fact that we have not been presented with credible evidence, we lack a belief in a God. We don't deny that a God could exist, we just don't believe in one.

This is not a hard concept to understand. But apparently for you it is.

Earth, calling the Governess.

I was not addressing you...or anyone who acknowledges that a god or gods could exist.

I was talking about people who insist "there are no gods" or who insist "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

And I am saying that they ARE NOT getting to those insistences via reason, logic or science...although many of them claim they are.

Read what I write...rather than going ape over something I did not write.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I personally find some discussions nonproductive. If there is nothing but the same response, no matter what the subject, sometimes, it's better to just let it go. Of course, I am told some people are masochistic, and like beating their heads against the wall.

Same response to you, Ramoss...as I offered to the Governess.

 

[Frank Apisa]

In this case I can understand. Because time and time again, Frank continues to act like Atheism is a "belief system" and is based on "faith", and no matter what any of us do he just jams his fingers in his ears.

Ugh. I'll admit that it's tiring as **** going through this same conversation over and over again.

I did not even mention the word "atheist" in my postings, Governess.

Once again...deal with what I wrote...rather than getting into your usual lather over something I didn't write.

 

[TheGoverness]

Earth, calling the Governess.

I was not addressing you...or anyone who acknowledges that a god or gods could exist.

I was talking about people who insist "there are no gods" or who insist "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

And I am saying that they ARE NOT getting to those insistences via reason, logic or science...although many of them claim they are.

Read what I write...rather than going ape over something I did not write.

D not act like you weren't addressing the atheists/non-religious, Frank. Just because you didn't outright state that doesn't mean I don't know what you're trying to say.

Do you not remember the last time we had this conversation in another thread, where you were claiming that atheism is a "belief system", and we take it all by "faith"? Huh? Remember that? That was YOU.

 

[Frank Apisa]

D not act like you weren't addressing the atheists/non-religious, Frank. Just because you didn't outright state that doesn't mean I don't know what you're trying to say.

Do you not remember the last time we had this conversation in another thread, where you were claiming that atheism is a "belief system", and we take it all by "faith"? Huh? Remember that? That was YOU.

We are talking here...and you are supposedly responding to what I said here. Instead, you are creating a straw man.

ANYONE who claims and asserts there are no gods...or who claims or asserts it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are at least one...IS NOT ARRIVING AT THOSE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS USING REASON, LOGIC, OR SCIENCE.

That is what I am saying.

I am saying that the people who claim or assert there is a GOD are not using reason, logic, or science to arrive there...and I am saying the people who claim or assert there are no gods are not using reason, logic, or science to arrive there either. BOTH are guessing or using "faith" or "belief."

Deal with that.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Jesus Christ, not this again...

Why can't you realise that most atheists are also agnostics as well? We admit that we don't 100% know if there is a God or not, but due to the fact that we have not been presented with credible evidence, we lack a belief in a God. We don't deny that a God could exist, we just don't believe in one.

This is not a hard concept to understand. But apparently for you it is.

Well obviously but if he ever did he would have nothing to try to sound clever about...

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well obviously but if he ever did he would have nothing to try to sound clever about...

ANYONE who claims and asserts there are no gods...or who claims or asserts it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are at least one...IS NOT ARRIVING AT THOSE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS USING REASON, LOGIC, OR SCIENCE.

You got anything to say about that, Tim...or are you just going to take lame cheap shots at me?

 

[Tim the plumber]

ANYONE who claims and asserts there are no gods...or who claims or asserts it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are at least one...IS NOT ARRIVING AT THOSE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS USING REASON, LOGIC, OR SCIENCE.

You got anything to say about that, Tim...or are you just going to take lame cheap shots at me?

NOBODY is asserting that there are no Gods. You are presenting a straw man to try to look clever by defeating it.

Atheists do not believe in God or gods that's all. That is different to saying that they know that there are no such things as Gods.

 

[Frank Apisa]

NOBODY is asserting that there are no Gods.

In your dreams.

Are you actually going to try to sell the idea that nobody every claims there are no gods...no one ever asserts that there are no gods????

If you do, I will furnish 3 or 4 examples of people right here in this forum doing so.

You are presenting a straw man to try to look clever by defeating it.

I am willing to furnish the examples of people right here in this forum doing it...if you want to continue to looks foolish, Tim.

Atheists do not believe in God or gods that's all.

Like I said...perhaps that is as far as you go. BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE (lots of them) who assert there are no gods...AND who assert a BELIEF that there are no gods. There are even some here who assert it is impossible for gods to exist. (One right here in this thread!)

That is different to saying that they know that there are no such things as Gods.

Listen to what is actually being said...and respond to that.

 

[TheGoverness]

We are talking here...and you are supposedly responding to what I said here. Instead, you are creating a straw man.

ANYONE who claims and asserts there are no gods...or who claims or asserts it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are at least one...IS NOT ARRIVING AT THOSE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS USING REASON, LOGIC, OR SCIENCE.

That is what I am saying.

I am saying that the people who claim or assert there is a GOD are not using reason, logic, or science to arrive there...and I am saying the people who claim or assert there are no gods are not using reason, logic, or science to arrive there either. BOTH are guessing or using "faith" or "belief."

Deal with that.

Strawman? Really?

So this wasn't you:

"Both religious and skeptics...when speaking of whether or not there are gods...ARE MAKING WILD, BLIND GUESSES."

"The 'skeptic' thinks it is alright to suggest that one wild guess out of many...is the one that cannot be correct."

"The 'skeptics', Visbek, often are the ones with the most "faith" in these discussions"

 

[Frank Apisa]

Strawman? Really?

So this wasn't you:

"Both religious and skeptics...when speaking of whether or not there are gods...ARE MAKING WILD, BLIND GUESSES."

"The 'skeptic' thinks it is alright to suggest that one wild guess out of many...is the one that cannot be correct."

"The 'skeptics', Visbek, often are the ones with the most "faith" in these discussions"

Yes...that was me.

ANYONE...ANYWHERE...speaking of whether or not there are gods...ARE MAKING WILD, BLIND GUESSES.

What problem do you have with that?

How do you think that negates anything I am saying here and now?