Deism?

[Lord Kenneth]

There is no evidence that a God was the "first cause", or even that a God is necessary for the first cause. It seems just as likely as saying the Elves of the Iron Goatee "did it".

I'm saying that atheism is more rational than deism.

I have nothing further to say... I am interested to see what other people have to say about this.

Oh, and Franko, your ideas are not even shared by most (and by most, I mean, MOST) deists, so I'd rather not hear any of your crap.

Well of course atheism is more rational; it uses rationality to arrive at its position. Deism relies on emotion and desire, not logic. It's not surprising that many value what emotion and desire tell them more than logic and reason.

[Lord Kenneth]

The reason I made this topic was I was browsing the deism.org forums, and it appeared that the common consensus there was that atheism and diesm are equally rational.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
The reason I made this topic was I was browsing the deism.org forums, and it appeared that the common consensus there was that atheism and diesm are equally rational.

It's a form of straw man. Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.

[Checkmite]

I tend to think that any position on God besides agnosticism is equally rational - or, for the purpose of accuracy, equally irrational.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I tend to think that any position on God besides agnosticism is equally rational - or, for the purpose of accuracy, equally irrational.

So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

Equally irrational, yes. Scientifically, anyway...both the "belief" and "disbelief" set are seriously wanting as far as empirical evidence goes. Philisophically speaking, however, it's another matter entirely.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Equally irrational, yes. Scientifically, anyway...both the "belief" and "disbelief" set are seriously wanting as far as empirical evidence goes. Philisophically speaking, however, it's another matter entirely.

How would one have no evidence of the magical Goat's existence?

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


So believing in the magical Goat of Everlasting Cheesecake and disbelieving are equally rational?

Mmmmm... cheesecake. Very evil of you to mention this whilst I am eating salads and doing situps. ::( :D

Take care,
Sort

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


How would one have no evidence of the magical Goat's existence?

First...are using the "goat" as a simile for a proposed god?

----
Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.
----


So atheism is the Truth, is that your claim?

[Fade]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Some people I can name on this forum equate atheism to religion in order to lessen it's impact. Deists do the same, by relating their illogical position to a logical one, in order to have others consider them in the same light.

Deism, like all sorts of theism, is flat out wishful thinking.
----


So atheism is the Truth, is that your claim?

Your attempt to troll has been noted. Thanks, honey pie sweetie bunches.

Originally posted by Fade


Your attempt to troll has been noted. Thanks, honey pie sweetie bunches.


Fade, why can't you answer my question?

You are saying everything that you don't believe in, of course, is wishful thinking.

How do you know that that isn't wishful thinking on your part?

[Lord Kenneth]

He means that as far as we know, with the given evidence, it is the truth.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
There is no evidence that a God was the "first cause", or even that a God is necessary for the first cause. It seems just as likely as saying the Elves of the Iron Goatee "did it".

I'm saying that atheism is more rational than deism.

I have nothing further to say... I am interested to see what other people have to say about this.

Oh, and Franko, your ideas are not even shared by most (and by most, I mean, MOST) deists, so I'd rather not hear any of your crap.

hahaha
I really do enjoy watching an atheist proclaim that their religion is the one true faith....

the preaching of free-willy gods and double standards...haha and you call atheism rational? ...you really are the religious fanatics
:rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Well I didn't get an answer...so I'm guessing that we're using the Goat as a synonym for the common notion of "God". Very well then...

The way I look at this entire problem is thus: it's a philisophical problem. Most concepts of "God" require that god to be necessarily seperate from the universe. The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe. Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls. In other words, it is an unscientific question - therefore, even trying to approach it in a scientific (i.e. "based on empirical evidence" ) way is, itself, irrational. It follows then that any conclusion one reaches regarding the God Question that uses "scientific evidence" as an arguing point will be irrational, plain and simple - whether that conclusion is one of belief or disbelief. Science stops at the edge of the observable universe. What happens outside that line is strictly within the realm of philosophy - which simply isn't subject to the same rules as science. This is frustrating to many people, and understandably so.

Approaching the God Problem from a philisophical standpoint - well, we can argue about that till we're blue in the face, because everybody has his own approach to philisophical matters.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
Well of course atheism is more rational; it uses rationality to arrive at its position.

You have got to be kidding me!
Name one thing that is rational brought about by atheism

Deism relies on emotion and desire, not logic.

I take it that the desire for Truth isnt logical? :rolleyes:

It's not surprising that many value what emotion and desire tell them more than logic and reason.

Someone please save this guy before he hurts himself ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe.

This is not a weakness though, it is the strength of science.

Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls.

Yes, to believe in the unobservable is irrational.

In other words, it is an unscientific question - therefore, even trying to approach it in a scientific (i.e. "based on empirical evidence" ) way is, itself, irrational.

Only in your small opinion. To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.

It follows then that any conclusion one reaches regarding the God Question that uses "scientific evidence" as an arguing point will be irrational, plain and simple - whether that conclusion is one of belief or disbelief.

Oh yes, it follows, but only if one accepts your false premise that science is irrational.

Approaching the God Problem from a philisophical standpoint - well, we can argue about that till we're blue in the face, because everybody has his own approach to philisophical matters.

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

This is not a weakness though, it is the strength of science.

Of course it isn't a weakness - but it's also why science and philosophy are two different things.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, to believe in the unobservable is irrational.

The same could be said of any emotion.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Only in your small opinion. To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.

It's also the kind of thing that gets people to donate money to the homeless, send get-well cards, propose marriage, and overthrow tyranny.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Oh yes, it follows, but only if one accepts your false premise that science is irrational.

I never said science was irrational - don't be silly.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

Only when applied to what it was meant for. My point is, the scientific method was not designed to be applied to philosophy. Right tool for the right job, and all that.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.

I think the scientific method has been considered kind of philosophy in itself since the Age of Enlightenment, in order to distinguish it from natural philosophy.

----
to believe in the unobservable is irrational.
----


Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.


----
To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.
----


Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the communitiy. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.


----
Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.
----


You must have never had a philosophy of science class Ken.

If you think the scientific method is objective, whooo boy...


1) You ASSUME things are caused by natural causes.
(you also ASSUME cause and effect holds)

2) You ASSUME there is uniformity in space and time.

3) You ASSUME common perception.

2) and 3) give the supposed objectiveness.

On to the method itself:

1) observe, and form a question
(you do this with your senses or interpret machine data through your senses, right?)

2) make a hypothesis, a tentative answer to the question, an educated guess in the form of a statement
(an educated guess is still a guess, different people come up with different hypotheses)

3) experiment to test the hypothesis, carefully structured observations that involve some form of manipulation or intervention by the investigator
(by the investigator or another human, always bias present, differnet people come up with different experiments)

4) Conclusions, human logic
(different people come up with different conclusions)

5) further observations, predictions, etc.

6) theory, a hypothesis that has passed many tests

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

to believe in the unobservable is irrational.
----

Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.

Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable? If you already believe your theory is true, why even bother testing it?

The biggest mistake you can make in science is to believe that your theories are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up.

To believe and speculate on things unobserved is simply going on faith and false assumptions, it's these type of beliefs that get people to fly planes into buildings.
----

Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the community. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists? The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point. Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?

Which is exactly why objective scientific method is much more rational than subjective beliefs and philosophy.
----

You must have never had a philosophy of science class Ken.

If you think the scientific method is objective, whooo boy...


1) You ASSUME things are caused by natural causes.
(you also ASSUME cause and effect holds)

2) You ASSUME there is uniformity in space and time.

3) You ASSUME common perception.

2) and 3) give the supposed objectiveness.

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.

On to the method itself:

1) observe, and form a question
(you do this with your senses or interpret machine data through your senses, right?)

2) make a hypothesis, a tentative answer to the question, an educated guess in the form of a statement
(an educated guess is still a guess, different people come up with different hypotheses)

So what? The "guess" is not accepted as anything more than that, until such time as it is supported by reliable empirical evidence.

3) experiment to test the hypothesis, carefully structured observations that involve some form of manipulation or intervention by the investigator
(by the investigator or another human, always bias present, differnet people come up with different experiments)

Which is why experiments are repeated by different people, and done in different ways. Science is all about taking those subjective biases into account, and making sure that they have not skewed the results.

4) Conclusions, human logic
(different people come up with different conclusions)

Which is why the conclusions are only accepted as scientific facts when they can be demonstrated to be based on formal logic, and that they are not based on subjective interpretation.

5) further observations, predictions, etc.

6) theory, a hypothesis that has passed many tests

And it is that final extensively tested theory that can be accepted as objective knowledge. So what is the problem?

For somebody who has "studied the philosophy of science", you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of it, and of basic epistemology, for that matter.

What's more, your points don't support the idea that believing in the unobservable is rational. on the contrary, if you claims about science were true, that would not make believing in the unobservable rational. It would make science incoherent. Even if science is complete and utter bullsh*t, that in no way indicates that belief in the unobservable is rational. All it does is render it impossible to reliably observe anything.

This is nothing more than the tired old woowoo tactic of attacking the scientific position, rather than defending your own position.

Dr. Stupid

[Checkmite]

As far as observation and the knowable universe goes, I think the Scientific Method happens to be the best protocol we have.

By the way, Whodini, it is interesting to note that despite the different biases different people may have, or the different "approaches" they make to the scientific method, people often reach the same conclusions. Indeed, it is only when several independent entities arrive at the same conclusions repeatedly that an item is considered as probable fact. The reason for this, of course, is to weed out any oddities that may have resulted from personal bias, or bad experimental planning.

[Tricky]

Deism, at least the way Joshua presents it, has no significant difference in its methodology from atheism. The reason I reject it is because it is less parsimonious. While both atheists and deists agree that they are unsure about the origin of the universe, deists add another thing, a "god", to be unsure about as well. The presence of this non-interfering god adds no key to solving the puzzle of origins, and thus is unnecessary. Sorry Josh.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Tricky
Deism, at least the way Joshua presents it, has no significant difference in its methodology from atheism. The reason I reject it is because it is less parsimonious. While both atheists and deists agree that they are unsure about the origin of the universe, deists add another thing, a "god", to be unsure about as well. The presence of this non-interfering god adds no key to solving the puzzle of origins, and thus is unnecessary. Sorry Josh.

Non-conscious TLOP creating life is more parsimonious than conscious TLOP creatiing life?

Tricky, atheists tend to have this free-willy god belief :rolleyes:

Whats with the double standard?
;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wraith
Non-conscious TLOP creating life is more parsimonious than conscious TLOP creatiing life?

Why yes it is, wraith. If each conscious thing must be created by a conscious thing, then you just keep going backwards until you have an initial conscious thing that wasn't created by any other conscious thing (the Progenitor Solipsist, in LD). This means that LD has presumed several conscious things (PS, LG, TLOP) with no evidence for any of them. (And before you complain, I am only saying that there is no evidence that TLOP are conscious, not that they don't exist.)

So it is evident that atheists, like theists and LDeists, think that it is possible for consciousness to arise without a pre-existing consciousness. We simply disregard all the unprovable intermediaries. This is what is meant by parsimony, throwing out things which add nothing to the solution of a problem.

Originally posted by wraith
Tricky, atheists tend to have this free-willy god belief :rolleyes:

Actually, this discussion has nothing to do with free will. You really should stop obsessing about it.

Originally posted by wraith
Whats with the double standard?
You mean the double standard that human consciousness cannot arise on its own, but that the PS consciousness can? I don't know what's with that. Maybe you could tell me.

[BobM]

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Most concepts of "God" require that god to be necessarily seperate from the universe. The rub is, the scientific method has one restriction - it's limited to the observable universe. Something outside the universe is unobservable; therefore, attempting to approach the problem from a standpoint of scientific empiricism will always be doomed to run you into brick walls.

Something which is outside the universe is not just unobservable it's inconcievable. The universe contains everything - hence the name.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is outside the universe, then you are arguing that he does not exist.

There may well be things in the universe which, as yet we (meaning scientific method) have not yet or cannot yet observe (meaning detect by any possible method) but there is no grounds to believe that there is anything within the universe that cannot be observed. Observation is carrie dout by measuring the effects of a thing (e.g. how much light it reflects) - no effects, no thing. What is unobservable, therefore, does not exist.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is within the universe but unobservable you are arguing that he does not exist.

Perhaps this is yet another tired old argument that has escaped my education and I'm boring you with it but is there some problem with my reasoning here?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by BobM
It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that las t comment was unnecessary.

Graham

[Franko]

Joshie K.

it's also why science and philosophy are two different things.

What exactly is different about them?

My point is, the scientific method was not designed to be applied to philosophy.

Sounds like you are claiming that “Philosophy” is illogical by design?

the scientific method [i.e. Logic] was not designed to be applied to philosophy.

[Franko]

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that las t comment was unnecessary.

Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?

[MRC_Hans]

What exactly is different about them?

Science is testable, philosophy is not. Both are logical. (A logic argument is not a scientific test).

Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?People who dont think there are consequences for their actions are more polite than .... wait... how was it?

Hans

[Franko]

Stimpson:

Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable? If you already believe your theory is true, why even bother testing it?

The biggest mistake you can make in science is to believe that your theories are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up.

I agree with what you say here Stimpson, but it sounds to me like you are contradicting what you told me specifically the other day.

You told me that “assumptions” (theories you just believe are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up) were absolutely necessary to “science”.

If you are claiming this is not the case why don’t you tell us how you proved the theory that I am real (not a figment of your imagination) as True?

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists?

You mean aside from the fact that that don’t believe in the concept of Rewards and Punishment??? If you are unwilling to accept that evidence, what evidence would convince you?

The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point.

The only thing that I have ever observed A-Theist groups doing is prohibiting Free-speech, invoking censorship (anyone remember the pledge), and promoting Religious Intolerance and Hatred. The A-Theists are a bunch of desperately cynical pessimist, and pessimism is all that their religion spreads.

Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?

That A-Theists don’t believe in consequences for their actions. Obviously they will behave as if this is what they believe.

And you must have never had a basic logic class, if you don't realize that all logical frameworks must be based on assumptions.

No Logic is based on Self-consistency, Parsimony, and observation. “Assumptions”, and “frameworks” are just code words for Religious Dogma, and Pessimistic Wishful Thinking.

So what? The "guess" is not accepted as anything more than that, until such time as it is supported by reliable empirical evidence.

What exactly is your empirical observation that proves the Universes is NOT simply the product of your imagination?

Which is why experiments are repeated by different people, and done in different ways. Science is all about taking those subjective biases into account, and making sure that they have not skewed the results.

What about the part where you add in some “assumptions” and then mix in a “framework”?

Which is why the conclusions are only accepted as scientific facts when they can be demonstrated to be based on formal logic, and that they are not based on subjective interpretation.

Your proof that Solipsism is False seems very much based on subjective interpretation. Can you demonstrate that your conclusion is actually based on “formal logic”?

This is nothing more than the tired old woowoo tactic of attacking the scientific position, rather than defending your own position.

Who dies and said that what you believe is “scientific”? Or is what you believe “scientific” because Solipsism is true, and no one else exist anyway?

[Franko]

MRC,

Science is testable, philosophy is not.

What does that mean? Aren't all philosophies based on observations of reality. Why can't they be tested.

[BobM]

It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

You're a bit rude aren't you? I think that last comment was unnecessary.But mom! They started it!

[Graham]

Originally posted by Franko


Hitting the nail of the head (speaking the Truth) is rude?

Graham, are you an Atheist by any chance ?

You asked me this question in a PM, franko and I replied to it as best I could. Am I to assume you didn't bother to read that reply?

I'll repeat it for you, if you like:

On to the hard question: do I consider myself an Atheist? I don’t know. I think technically I’m an agnostic but I find the standard ideas of God pretty ludicrous and so hugely unlikely that I’m definitely towards the Atheist end of the scale. According to my father I’m apparently “some kind of heathen” but I think he was just mad at me for refusing to go to church!

Ultimately, “atheist” and “agnostic” are just words. Without words, of course, all philosophy would be hopeless. At the same time, however, it’s unfortunate how often we all end up arguing about the words rather than the philosophy.

There are many ways to phrase the truth, Franko, there's rarely a need to be dismissive of others which, yes, I would consider rude.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by BobM
But mom! They started it!

Don't give me that, young man, I don't want to hear it. Now, you apologise to your friend, right this minute!

Graham-possibly-an-atheist-but-definitely-not-your-mom (sorry)

[Franko]

Graham:
I find the standard ideas of God pretty ludicrous and so hugely unlikely that I’m definitely towards the Atheist end of the scale

I found the Flat-Earth models of the solar system pretty ludicrous and hugely unlikely. Fortunately the existence of those theories, didn't entirely cause me to abandon trying to comprehend the subject of Astronomy. But perhaps an A-Theist mind just works differently?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Franko


I found the Flat-Earth models of the solar system pretty ludicrous and hugely unlikely. Fortunately the existence of those theories, didn't entirely cause me to abandon trying to comprehend the subject of Astronomy. But perhaps an A-Theist mind just works differently?

Perhaps . . .

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

I agree with what you say here Stimpson, but it sounds to me like you are contradicting what you told me specifically the other day.

You told me that “assumptions” (theories you just believe are true before you have substantial evidence to back them up) were absolutely necessary to “science”.

Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.

If you are claiming this is not the case why don’t you tell us how you proved the theory that I am real (not a figment of your imagination) as True?

It can't be proven true. But there is substantial supporting evidence for it.

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean aside from the fact that that don’t believe in the concept of Rewards and Punishment??? If you are unwilling to accept that evidence, what evidence would convince you?

Pure nonsense. I have never met an atheist who did not believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. That is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it is irrelevant, because most of the most generous people I know aren't generous out of any belief that they are going to be rewarded for it.

For that matter, I am a pretty generous person, and not because I think I am going to be rewarded for it.

The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only thing that I have ever observed A-Theist groups doing is prohibiting Free-speech, invoking censorship (anyone remember the pledge), and promoting Religious Intolerance and Hatred. The A-Theists are a bunch of desperately cynical pessimist, and pessimism is all that their religion spreads.

More utter and complete nonsense. I don't know of any atheist organizations that are opposed to free-speech. The movement to have "under God" removed from the pledge had nothing to do with censorship. Theists are free to praise their imaginary friends all they want. They just can't force the rest of us to do it too. By the way, a lot of Theists oppose the use of "under God" in the pledge too. Some because they feel it is blasphemous, and some because they are clear-headed enough to realize that the God being referred to in the pledge is not the one they worship.

As usual, you have nothing substantial to say. Just the same old mindless repetition of your strawman fallacies and insults. Why do you even bother?

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Stimpson:

Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.

On 1/22/2003 you said:
But it would have to be something that includes the axioms of materialism, since they are the axioms of the scientific method. You can add as many additional assumptions as you want, and still have science work. That is, as long as science doesn't end up proving those additional assumptions to be wrong.

But if the axioms of Materialism are the axioms of “science”, and the axioms of Materialism are proven wrong, then according to you wouldn’t that prove “Science” wrong?

How can you use an axiom to prove itself wrong Stimpson?

I’d say that the only way you could do it is if the axiom is not self-consistent. Which means that if your “axiom” isn’t logical, it’s not an Axiom.

Like I said the other day, all you need is Logic and observation. Your use of the terms “assumptions”, and “framework” is just code for the term Dogma.

[Solipsism …] It can't be proven true. But there is substantial supporting evidence for it.

So what’s the “evidence”? I bet you don’t have a scrap of evidence, in fact, since I am merely a figment of your imagination, I know you don’t have any evidence.

Pure nonsense. I have never met an atheist who did not believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. That is just stupid.

You can whine all you want, but those are the FACTS my physicist friend.

An A-Theist believes that regardless of whether he lives his life as a Sinner, or a Saint, we ALL end up with the EXACT SAME Fate – we all “cease to exist”. An A-Theist has no ultimate motivation to be moral. It simply doesn’t make any difference and he knows it. His behavior is a manifestation of his belief. It’s as simple as that.

Not only is it stupid, it is irrelevant, because most of the most generous people I know aren't generous out of any belief that they are going to be rewarded for it.

Your naivety is showing.

For that matter, I am a pretty generous person, and not because I think I am going to be rewarded for it.

Really? So you are claiming to be an Altruist? Do you just give your money away to complete strangers for no good reason?

That would be an easy theory to test …

More utter and complete nonsense. I don't know of any atheist organizations that are opposed to free-speech.

Which is why only the A-Theist creation myth is taught in public schools?

The movement to have "under God" removed from the pledge had nothing to do with censorship.

Since the majority of U.S. citizens believe in God, and wanted that phrase included I guess you will claim this is another example of A-Theists championing “free speech”?

Theists are free to praise their imaginary friends all they want.

Your “unbiased scientific, objectivity” is showing Necromancer.

They just can't force the rest of us to do it too.

But you have no problem forcing a fundamentalist child to hear things which contradict his religion for an hour each day? Tell me Stimpson, why is it so horrible for an A-Theist child to hear the word “God”? Is that really “preparing” that child for the “real world”?

By the way, a lot of Theists oppose the use of "under God" in the pledge too. Some because they feel it is blasphemous, and some because they are clear-headed enough to realize that the God being referred to in the pledge is not the one they worship.

Really? Which God do you believe the pledge is referring to?

Perhaps it the same God looking down from that pyramid on the back of our money?

As usual, you have nothing substantial to say. Just the same old mindless repetition of your strawman fallacies and insults. Why do you even bother?

I enjoy pointing out what a religious fruitcake and complete and total hypocrite you are Stimpson.

I enjoy pointing out how, when it comes right down to it, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for any of the things you have been brainwashed into believing.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Graham


Something which is outside the universe is not just unobservable it's inconcievable. The universe contains everything - hence the name.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is outside the universe, then you are arguing that he does not exist.

There may well be things in the universe which, as yet we (meaning scientific method) have not yet or cannot yet observe (meaning detect by any possible method) but there is no grounds to believe that there is anything within the universe that cannot be observed. Observation is carrie dout by measuring the effects of a thing (e.g. how much light it reflects) - no effects, no thing. What is unobservable, therefore, does not exist.

Therefore, if you contend that "God" is within the universe but unobservable you are arguing that he does not exist.

Perhaps this is yet another tired old argument that has escaped my education and I'm boring you with it but is there some problem with my reasoning here?

Graham

No there isn't...you've simply paraphrased what I've said when I stated that science is limited to the observable universe. Speaking in a strictly scientific sense, there is no "outside" the universe, nor is does anything exist which cannot be observed. That's exactly why the God Question is a philisophical rather than a scientific one.

Let me give you an example: "Human Rights" are nothing but concepts based on nothing that can be "observed". Scientifically speaking, "human rights" simply do not exist - yet we value them greatly. Or, take the noble statement that "all men are created equal". Nevermind the problem brought up by the use of the word "create" - you may substitute "born" for it if you wish. Speaking again in a strictly scientific sense, all men are most decidedly and demonstrably not "equal" - some are more physically inclined, some are more intellectually inclined. But in direct contradiction to observable evidence, most of us (try to) treat everyone as equal. This is the difference between Science and Philiosophy.

[Franko]

most of us (try to) treat everyone as equal.

You think that's really True? :confused:

[Checkmite]

Yes, I think most of us try to treat everyone equal. Call me blindly optimistic, but I happen to think we're ever so slowly getting rid of social ills like racism and sexism. Religious tolerance...well, I'm afraid that seems to be a different story.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

But if the axioms of Materialism are the axioms of “science”, and the axioms of Materialism are proven wrong, then according to you wouldn’t that prove “Science” wrong?

How can you use an axiom to prove itself wrong Stimpson?

You can't. But you can use a set of axioms to prove that at least one of the axioms in the set is wrong, by demonstrating that the axioms are not consistent with each other.

With respect to science, the axioms state that reality is objective, logical, consistent, and that it is possible to acquire reliable information about it from our observations. It is therefore possible that we could make observations which the scientific method says should be reliable, but which are inconsistent with one or more of those axioms. This would imply that the axioms are not all logically consistent with each other, and would falsify science.

I’d say that the only way you could do it is if the axiom is not self-consistent. Which means that if your “axiom” isn’t logical, it’s not an Axiom.

Like I said the other day, all you need is Logic and observation. Your use of the terms “assumptions”, and “framework” is just code for the term Dogma.

And like I said, this is something that anybody with a basic understanding of formal logic knows is nonsense.

[Solipsism …] It can't be proven true. But there is substantial supporting evidence for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what’s the “evidence”? I bet you don’t have a scrap of evidence, in fact, since I am merely a figment of your imagination, I know you don’t have any evidence.

More nonsense. I said evidence, not proof. The evidence is the fact that the axioms of science (as a set) are falsifiable, and have been thoroughly tested. This constitutes evidence that the axioms of science, of which the rejection of solipsism is one, are true.

Pure nonsense. I have never met an atheist who did not believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. That is just stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can whine all you want, but those are the FACTS my physicist friend.

An A-Theist believes that regardless of whether he lives his life as a Sinner, or a Saint, we ALL end up with the EXACT SAME Fate – we all “cease to exist”. An A-Theist has no ultimate motivation to be moral. It simply doesn’t make any difference and he knows it. His behavior is a manifestation of his belief. It’s as simple as that.

Irrelevant. Just because I don't believe that I will be rewarded or punished after I die, doesn't mean I don't believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. And besides, fear of punishment and desire for rewards are not the only reasons for behaving morally. That is a childish concept that most people outgrow somewhere between 12 and 18.

Not only is it stupid, it is irrelevant, because most of the most generous people I know aren't generous out of any belief that they are going to be rewarded for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your naivety is showing.

And you call me a cynical pessimist. :rolleyes:

For that matter, I am a pretty generous person, and not because I think I am going to be rewarded for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? So you are claiming to be an Altruist? Do you just give your money away to complete strangers for no good reason?

That isn't what I said. I do have what I consider to be a good reason for my acts of generosity. Those reasons just aren't fear of punishment or expectation of reward. Usually I do it because I feel compassion for the less fortunate.

More utter and complete nonsense. I don't know of any atheist organizations that are opposed to free-speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why only the A-Theist creation myth is taught in public schools?

There is no atheist creation myth.

The movement to have "under God" removed from the pledge had nothing to do with censorship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the majority of U.S. citizens believe in God, and wanted that phrase included I guess you will claim this is another example of A-Theists championing “free speech”?

It isn't a free speech issue at all. Nobody is infringing of the right of theists to speak their minds. The phrase should be removed from the pledge because the constitution stipulates that the law passed by congress to add it in the first place, was unconstitutional.

Theists are free to praise their imaginary friends all they want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your “unbiased scientific, objectivity” is showing Necromancer.

Well, even if some sort of theism is true, it is still pretty clear that most, if not all theists, are not worshipping the right God.

They just can't force the rest of us to do it too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you have no problem forcing a fundamentalist child to hear things which contradict his religion for an hour each day?

There is no right to not hear what you don't want to hear.

Tell me Stimpson, why is it so horrible for an A-Theist child to hear the word “God”? Is that really “preparing” that child for the “real world”?

I never said it was. I have absolutely no problem with atheist children hearing about God. I have a problem with the government proclaiming that we are a theocracy.

By the way, a lot of Theists oppose the use of "under God" in the pledge too. Some because they feel it is blasphemous, and some because they are clear-headed enough to realize that the God being referred to in the pledge is not the one they worship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Which God do you believe the pledge is referring to?

Well, do the math. It can only be one God. After all, we can't be "one nation under all the gods, of which only one is real". Given that the US is predominantly Christian, and that the people who got that bit added to the pledge in the first place were Christians, I think it is pretty clear which God it is referring to.

Perhaps it the same God looking down from that pyramid on the back of our money?

Dude, that's not a God. It's an eye.

And with that, I think I have gotten my allotment of troll feeding out of the way. back under the bridge with you.

Dr. Stupid

----
Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable?
----


What is the purpose of SETI?


----
Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists? The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point. Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?
----


Nice try. I wasn't asserting that at all. If I was, I'd have just said that. My post clearly indicated that you interpret it how you want to interpret it, through your belief system.


----
For somebody who has "studied the philosophy of science", you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of it, and of basic epistemology, for that matter.
----


More veiled ad-homs from Stimpy.


----
This is nothing more than the tired old woowoo tactic of attacking the scientific position, rather than defending your own position.
----


No, I wasn't attacking science at all. You interpreted it that way through your belief system. I pointed out to someone that the scientific method has areas where subjectivity can and does sneak in.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by BobM
It's not Whodini that doesn't understand this, it's Ken and Dark Cobra. The current local amateur atheists.

Amazing, sticking up for someone, calling two people wrong, and then insulting them.


...And not backing up your claims of me and Ken are wrong.


Typical.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini

Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.




First of all, unobservable seems to me to mean "can't be observed", not "not observed yet".

Also, observing something does not require sight. Do you think germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures were pulled all out of their ass (like religion)?



Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the communitiy. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.


Hmmm...

I haven't seen any "theist" groups either. Atheism isn't a religion. Theism isn't a religion. It seem most of the charity groups are foun ded by a RELIGION or for a RELIGION.

:rolleyes:





You must have never had a philosophy of science class Ken.

If you think the scientific method is objective, whooo boy...


1) You ASSUME things are caused by natural causes.
(you also ASSUME cause and effect holds)

2) You ASSUME there is uniformity in space and time.

3) You ASSUME common perception.

2) and 3) give the supposed objectiveness.

On to the method itself:

1) observe, and form a question
(you do this with your senses or interpret machine data through your senses, right?)

2) make a hypothesis, a tentative answer to the question, an educated guess in the form of a statement
(an educated guess is still a guess, different people come up with different hypotheses)

3) experiment to test the hypothesis, carefully structured observations that involve some form of manipulation or intervention by the investigator
(by the investigator or another human, always bias present, differnet people come up with different experiments)

4) Conclusions, human logic
(different people come up with different conclusions)

5) further observations, predictions, etc.

6) theory, a hypothesis that has passed many tests

You think you know so much about science?

I think not. http://cs.bluffton.edu/~berger/NSC/TenMyths.html

You don't even know what a hypothesis is.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Franko
Stimpson:



But if the axioms of Materialism are the axioms of “science”, and the axioms of Materialism are proven wrong, then according to you wouldn’t that prove “Science” wrong?

How can you use an axiom to prove itself wrong Stimpson?

I’d say that the only way you could do it is if the axiom is not self-consistent. Which means that if your “axiom” isn’t logical, it’s not an Axiom.

Like I said the other day, all you need is Logic and observation. Your use of the terms “assumptions”, and “framework” is just code for the term Dogma.



So what’s the “evidence”? I bet you don’t have a scrap of evidence, in fact, since I am merely a figment of your imagination, I know you don’t have any evidence.



You can whine all you want, but those are the FACTS my physicist friend.

An A-Theist believes that regardless of whether he lives his life as a Sinner, or a Saint, we ALL end up with the EXACT SAME Fate – we all “cease to exist”. An A-Theist has no ultimate motivation to be moral. It simply doesn’t make any difference and he knows it. His behavior is a manifestation of his belief. It’s as simple as that.



Your naivety is showing.



Really? So you are claiming to be an Altruist? Do you just give your money away to complete strangers for no good reason?

That would be an easy theory to test …



Which is why only the A-Theist creation myth is taught in public schools?



Since the majority of U.S. citizens believe in God, and wanted that phrase included I guess you will claim this is another example of A-Theists championing “free speech”?



Your “unbiased scientific, objectivity” is showing Necromancer.



But you have no problem forcing a fundamentalist child to hear things which contradict his religion for an hour each day? Tell me Stimpson, why is it so horrible for an A-Theist child to hear the word “God”? Is that really “preparing” that child for the “real world”?



Really? Which God do you believe the pledge is referring to?

Perhaps it the same God looking down from that pyramid on the back of our money?



I enjoy pointing out what a religious fruitcake and complete and total hypocrite you are Stimpson.

I enjoy pointing out how, when it comes right down to it, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for any of the things you have been brainwashed into believing.

There is such a thing as honest discourse between people of goodwill and then there is this ********. Franko keeps talking about no evidence - no evidence for not god. 'Prove there isn't god.' 'Prove you have free will' - both absurdities. There is a fundamental difference in the motives between those who are not "believers" and those who are. Those with fixed belief systems approach these debates desperately fashioning arguments to support their preexisting ideas. The worst sort of sophistry.

Of course, Franko will argue that atheists are committed to their irrational no god belief systems. However, you have to ask yourself how these two camps arrived at their positions. I would say that the god believers arbitrarily decided to believe what they do and then desperately seek ways to rationalize their belief to themselves and others. Now, what they believe may well be true - I mean you can't prove it's not, but they certainly could not have deduced what they believe from the evidence. (if you could, then "faith" would be meaningless.) On the other hand, the atheists and the doubters are hamstrung by having to actually make their belief choices based on the available evidence and not some entirely arbitrary leap of faith.

I am perfectly willing to concede that Franko is right about absolutely everything, but if he is it is only by virtue of having made a fabulously lucky guess. Sort of like winning the lottery but with very much worse odds. He certainly could not have deciphered the mysteries of god and the universe from the available evidence. And certainly his world view makes precious little sense in light of that evidence. If there is a god in any remotely meaningful sense, it would seem likely there might be some actual evidence for his existance and very unlikely there would be the abundance of no evidence that there is.

Also, I can not begin to understand Franko's whole thing about free will. Franko likes equations, how about this one:

No free will = no choice = no responsibility for choices

In Franko's nutty universe, somehow, we are all held responsible for choices we are unable to make.

----
Also, observing something does not require sight. Do you think germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures were pulled all out of their ass (like religion)?
----


Let's get back to SETI...


----
I haven't seen any "theist" groups either. Atheism isn't a religion. Theism isn't a religion. It seem most of the charity groups are foun ded by a RELIGION or for a RELIGION.
----


Fine, then let me be more specific. I've never, ever seen a group of atheists in the areas I've lived in, do any type of charity work. I've seen many religious groups in these activities.


----
You think you know so much about science?

I think not. http://cs.bluffton.edu/~berger/NSC/TenMyths.html

You don't even know what a hypothesis is.
----


Let's get real here, please. The common working usage of the word hypothesis, nit-picking definitions aside, is an educated guess.

But maybe you brought this up to get off the topic of atheist groups and their, for the most part, non-participating in charities?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Whodini


Let's get back to SETI...



Since we humans ourselves have formed on a planet, it is reasonable to assume that we aren't magical and special and are the only creatures that can form on a planet (We, afterall, see no reason to come to such a conclusion). SETI is trying to find life on other planets. That has nothing to do with the "unobservable"-- it can be observed, and it HAS BEEN (as with us).



Fine, then let me be more specific. I've never, ever seen a group of atheists in the areas I've lived in, do any type of charity work. I've seen many religious groups in these activities.


Well, for one thing, what exactly are the purposes for these "atheist groups"?

Anyways, there are a lot more religious people than atheists in the USA, you know that.




Let's get real here, please. The common working usage of the word hypothesis, nit-picking definitions aside, is an educated guess.

But maybe you brought this up to get off the topic of atheist groups and their, for the most part, non-participating in charities?

Your definition of hypothesis and theory(and possibly scientific law)
are incorrect.

I brought that up.. because... *gasp* YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

Also, not forming your own charity does not equal not donating to a charity. Can you show me that atheists, as a whole, give less than theists?

----
Since we humans ourselves have formed on a planet, it is reasonable to assume that we aren't magical and special and are the only creatures that can form on a planet (We, afterall, see no reason to come to such a conclusion). SETI is trying to find life on other planets. That has nothing to do with the "unobservable"-- it can be observed, and it HAS BEEN (as with us).
----


And the probability of life being out there is small. The probability of advanced life being out there is small. The distances are immense that it is irrational to think we'd ever send a message successfully or receive one.

I'm all for it though.


----
Well, for one thing, what exactly are the purposes for these "atheist groups"?
----


I think really just bitching about religion, but the atheist groups disagree. They seem to claim to better humanity (by sitting and philosophizing about their superior rationality I guess).


----
Your definition of hypothesis and theory(and possibly scientific law)
are incorrect.
----


Very interesting. You must not have much professional experience in science. I didn't give a formal definition at all, I gave general everyday informal usage of the terms.


----
Can you show me that atheists, as a whole, give less than theists?
----


Now think how time consuming and expensive that would be. I never claimed I could... It was just my observation.

[DialecticMaterialist]

So is the idea that some invinsible vital fluid separates life from nonlife just as rational as the idea that it is "just chemistry"? I mean the vital fluid is defined as an unemprical matter so it must be.....

Mathematical matters are likewise nonempirical, or scientific, does that mean its rational to believe 2 plus two does not equal 4?

Approaching the God Problem from a philisophical standpoint - well, we can argue about that till we're blue in the face, because everybody has his own approach to philisophical matters.


Basically you are saying the issue is a scientific/empirical one: or its relativism or meaningless. That sounds like positivism.

By that token I likewise have to conclude that dibelief in: A dragon in my toilet that disapears when I go near, God, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Essentalist racial differences, etc.

However the fact is belief is spurrious whereas disbelief is not(its based in warranted generalization.)

I must say that I simply cannot agree with the assertion that a belief is irrational because the issue is not empirical or scientific. It depends on what you think is more probable: that people made the claim up(good reasons to believe) or that an actual supernatural being exists(no evidence for). To believe in a parsimonious natural universe or the natural universe PLUS God. Obviously the former are the rational choices in both cases.

In that sense I'd have to say its agnosticism(which says there's equal epistemic merit to both cases) is the irrational position, as it puts the superfluous on the same level with the parsimonious. It fails to adress the principles of probability, burden of proof, and background knowledge.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Irrelevant. Just because I don't believe that I will be rewarded or punished after I die, doesn't mean I don't believe in the concept of rewards and punishment. And besides, fear of punishment and desire for rewards are not the only reasons for behaving morally. That is a childish concept that most people outgrow somewhere between 12 and 18.

If there was proof that God/s did not exist, are you saying that people will be just as moral as they were under the belief that God/s existed?

Well, with this in principle, lets scrap the justice system!
No need to pay for security services.
Theres no need to hand out detentions if you do not do your homework :eek: ;)

[Graham]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
[B]

(snip)

Let me give you an example: "Human Rights" are nothing but concepts based on nothing that can be "observed". Scientifically speaking, "human rights" simply do not exist - yet we value them greatly.

What you're saying is that because we cannot observe/detect human rights scientifically, either (a) human rights do not exist or (b) there are things that exist which are "outside" science.

You are correctly pointing out that (a) is incorrect, since human rights evidently do exist, at least in our minds and that therefore (b) is correct.

However, the term "human rights" exists is an ethical or possibly political/societal term which refers to a set of basic freedoms and privilages that we, as a society, feel that every person should be entitled to.

At the end of the day, however, "human rights" is just two words - a collection of letters. It's not the words that we value, it's the concept. Just like the idea that "all men are created equal", it's the principle that we value.

The idea that people have human rights is, as you have correctly pointed out, a philosophy. It's a way of thinking. If we all suddenly stopped thinking that way, human rights would no longer exist. Human rights is a purely artificial, man-made construct, it has no independent existence.

Is this your conception of God too? Do you believe that God does not and cannot exist independently of belief? If everyone stopped believing in "your" ;) God, would he cease to exist?

Graham

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Since when does attempting to observe something that has not been observed constitute believing in the unobservable?
----

What is the purpose of SETI?

To observe something that may exist. Duh.

Do you have any evidence that atheists are less generous than theists? The fact that the few atheist groups that exist, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom of religion, church-state separation, is completely beside the point. Your post clearly indicates that you are asserting that atheists are less generous, and less concerned for the well-being of their fellow man, than atheists. Where is you evidence for this assertion?
----

Nice try. I wasn't asserting that at all. If I was, I'd have just said that. My post clearly indicated that you interpret it how you want to interpret it, through your belief system.

Oh really? Then you tell me. What exactly did you mean by this?

Those atheist groups are always so damn active with their food drives, donations, and help in the communitiy. YEAH RIGHT!

They must be too rational to waste their money and time on people who it will barely benefit. Who knows what they are thinking.

If this was just intended as an observation, then why bother? Certainly you must have thought the point was relevant, how? And if it was not intended as a claim that atheists aren't charitable, then why the second statement at all?

The fact that spew unjustified attacks at the moral and ethical values of atheists is bad enough. It just makes you a bigot. The fact that you won't own up to it, and try to weasel out of any responsibility for your statements when you get called on them, makes you a hypocrite too.

For somebody who has "studied the philosophy of science", you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of it, and of basic epistemology, for that matter.
----

More veiled ad-homs from Stimpy.

It is neither veiled, nor an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is where instead of addressing the argument, you attack the credibility of the person making the argument. This is not what I have done. I addressed your arguments, and then stated my opinion, which is that you appear to have a very poor understanding of both the philosophy of science, and of epistemology in general.

Dr. Stupid

[BobM]

Amazing, sticking up for someone, calling two people wrong, and then insulting them.
...And not backing up your claims of me and Ken are wrong.
Typical. (insert "sticking out my tongue" image here)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So is the idea that some invinsible vital fluid separates life from nonlife just as rational as the idea that it is "just chemistry"? I mean the vital fluid is defined as an unemprical matter so it must be.....

You're going to have to elaborate on this, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Mathematical matters are likewise nonempirical, or scientific, does that mean its rational to believe 2 plus two does not equal 4?

Mathematics is a system of adjectives used to describe, basically, "how many". It may not be scientific, but it isn't philisophical either.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Basically you are saying the issue is a scientific/empirical one: or its relativism or meaningless. That sounds like positivism.

By that token I likewise have to conclude that dibelief in: A dragon in my toilet that disapears when I go near, God, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Essentalist racial differences, etc.

However the fact is belief is spurrious whereas disbelief is not(its based in warranted generalization.)

I must say that I simply cannot agree with the assertion that a belief is irrational because the issue is not empirical or scientific. It depends on what you think is more probable: that people made the claim up(good reasons to believe) or that an actual supernatural being exists(no evidence for). To believe in a parsimonious natural universe or the natural universe PLUS God. Obviously the former are the rational choices in both cases.

I understand what you mean when you say you don't think all positions on a non-scientific issue must be irrational; but I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. The only argument you can summon against the God hypothesis - that is, lack of evidence - is a scientific one. I think that trying to apply a scientific argument to an unscientific issue is what's irrational.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In that sense I'd have to say its agnosticism(which says there's equal epistemic merit to both cases) is the irrational position, as it puts the superfluous on the same level with the parsimonious. It fails to adress the principles of probability, burden of proof, and background knowledge.

Agnosticism, as I understand it, does not give either case merit due to insufficient data, so I cannot agree with your statement. Agnosticism is the reservation of judgement, nothing more. For the record, why is an acausal universe parsimonious, whereas a causal universe isn't?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Graham


What you're saying is that because we cannot observe/detect human rights scientifically, either (a) human rights do not exist or (b) there are things that exist which are "outside" science.

You are correctly pointing out that (a) is incorrect, since human rights evidently do exist, at least in our minds and that therefore (b) is correct.

However, the term "human rights" exists is an ethical or possibly political/societal term which refers to a set of basic freedoms and privilages that we, as a society, feel that every person should be entitled to.

At the end of the day, however, "human rights" is just two words - a collection of letters. It's not the words that we value, it's the concept. Just like the idea that "all men are created equal", it's the principle that we value.

The idea that people have human rights is, as you have correctly pointed out, a philosophy. It's a way of thinking. If we all suddenly stopped thinking that way, human rights would no longer exist. Human rights is a purely artificial, man-made construct, it has no independent existence.

Is this your conception of God too? Do you believe that God does not and cannot exist independently of belief? If everyone stopped believing in "your" ;) God, would he cease to exist?

Graham

Your question is a difficult one to answer, and I'll try to explain why.

If one were to look for the narrowest definition of Deism, one would find it summarized thusly: The universe was caused or created, and whatever entity or function or mechanism was responsible for it no longer interferes. Why it doesn't interfere is not important - If there was an intelligence responsible, perhaps the intelligence went elsewhere, or hung the universe on his wall as a completed product. Perhaps it was an unintelligent physical function, or a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation, and thus no longer "exists", and so is incapable of interfering. Deism in and of itself doesn't try to define what the "starting gun" is - it just asserts that there was one, and that it was seperate or outside this universe (because nothing can create itself). One thing Deists in general tend not to do is personify the "starting gun". Of course, besides the two main "tenets" of Deism, various Deists may hold this or that particular view - on things such as the afterlife, etc., but those issues must be taken up with the particular people who hold them.

Different Deists refer to the "starting gun" in different ways - the most common are "the First Cause" and "God", used basically out of convention. The thing that needs to be stressed is, the Deist use of "God" shouldn't be taken to necessarily mean a "personal" God. The problem is, that's often the way it's understood by people (as it was by Dark Cobra, if his opening post is any indication), because that's the context in which we're used to hearing the word "God" utilized - and when a Deist says "he" when talking about God, like I do often, this probably doesn't help the problem. Let me make this clear now - when I say "God", I'm not talking about the bearded guy in the starry robe. I'm simply talking about whatever caused or created the universe. It's a label of convenience used out of convention.

That having been said - if the entire world came to the conclusion that the universe is acausal, or was causal but whatever caused it continues to influence or interfere with it, then yes, the Deist concept of "First Cause" couldn't be said to meaningfully exist.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Your question is a difficult one to answer, and I'll try to explain why.
(snip)
Different Deists refer to the "starting gun" in different ways - the most common are "the First Cause" and "God", used basically out of convention. The thing that needs to be stressed is, the Deist use of "God" shouldn't be taken to necessarily mean a "personal" God. The problem is, that's often the way it's understood by people (as it was by Dark Cobra, if his opening post is any indication), because that's the context in which we're used to hearing the word "God" utilized - and when a Deist says "he" when talking about God, like I do often, this probably doesn't help the problem. Let me make this clear now - when I say "God", I'm not talking about the bearded guy in the starry robe. I'm simply talking about whatever caused or created the universe. It's a label of convenience used out of convention.

You are correct in so far as I, at least, did not realise that.

That having been said - if the entire world came to the conclusion that the universe is acausal, or was causal but whatever caused it continues to influence or interfere with it, then yes, the Deist concept of "First Cause" couldn't be said to meaningfully exist.

OK, fine but the first cause, whatever it is would still exist because it's a real thing, by your definition it is whatever caused the universe and since the universe evidently exists, then your "God" does, correct?

Your "God" has/had a function: causing the universe to exist. Therefore by "observing" that the universe exists, science can, in fact, conclude that your "God" does/does not exist.

Current popular scientific theory suggests that your "God" is "a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation" (or whatever). As with all scientific theory, that is open to revision but this negates your theory that God is "outside of science".

So my next question is, (if you don't mind being pestered!) why do you not just go with current scientific thinking and call it "a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation" (with the "open to revision" disclaimer).

Why introduce the term "God" at all since it has no additional meaning?

Bluntly, what value is there in this additional layer of terminology?

Graham.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Graham
So my next question is, (if you don't mind being pestered!) why do you not just go with current scientific thinking and call it "a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation" (with the "open to revision" disclaimer).
Forgive me for answering a question not addressed to me.

Although the deist or naturalist version of god may be embodied in science, there seems to be one hurdle that humans have a hard time jumping, and that is that God must be conscious. He might simply flip the switch and let the machine run, but Man seems to desire a conscious entity flipping the switch.
What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!
----------The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

[Graham]

Originally posted by Tricky

Forgive me for answering a question not addressed to me.

Although the deist or naturalist version of god may be embodied in science, there seems to be one hurdle that humans have a hard time jumping, and that is that God must be conscious. He might simply flip the switch and let the machine run, but Man seems to desire a conscious entity flipping the switch.


Feel free, it's answers I'm after, after all!

Nice quote from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, btw. I used to have a nice edition of it but I lent it to a friend and, as is often the way, never say it again.

Anyhoo, Joshua said:

Let me make this clear now - when I say "God", I'm not talking about the bearded guy in the starry robe. I'm simply talking about whatever caused or created the universe. It's a label of convenience used out of convention.

Are you saying that, if you are a deist whatever caused or created the universe has to be conscious? And that a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation would therefore not qualify as "God"?

Graham

[Tricky]

Here you go (http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Omar_Khayyam/omar_khayyam_rubaiyat.htm), Graham. It is an important resource for me.

(BTW. Nice Catch 22 reference in your "location")

[Graham]

Thanks for the link.

If you're interested, this page (http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page1.htm) gives the Fitzgerald translation alongside a literal translation (and often a German translation for some reason).

A lot of it is really more Fitzgerald's poem than Khayyam's by the time he's finished.

Catch-22 is one of my all time favourite books. Even as I write this I think "Major Major Major Major" and a big crazy smile spreads across my face!

Now, about those deists . . .

Graham

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Graham


OK, fine but the first cause, whatever it is would still exist because it's a real thing, by your definition it is whatever caused the universe and since the universe evidently exists, then your "God" does, correct?

You have a point. :D

Originally posted by Graham
Your "God" has/had a function: causing the universe to exist. Therefore by "observing" that the universe exists, science can, in fact, conclude that your "God" does/does not exist.

As far as I know, the history of the universe can be traced back to the initial singularity. As it is (also as far as I know) impossible to gather any information from before the initial singularity, any guess as to what caused it is purely speculative - so I still don't believe science can reach such a conclusion.

Originally posted by Graham
Current popular scientific theory suggests that your "God" is "a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation" (or whatever). As with all scientific theory, that is open to revision but this negates your theory that God is "outside of science".

I've heard of the vaccuum fluctuation theory, although I was unaware that it was as yet popularly accepted. I don't know the particulars of the theory, so I'm unable to answer here.

Originally posted by Graham
So my next question is, (if you don't mind being pestered!) why do you not just go with current scientific thinking and call it "a statistically inevitable vaccuum fluctuation" (with the "open to revision" disclaimer).

Why introduce the term "God" at all since it has no additional meaning?

Bluntly, what value is there in this additional layer of terminology?

Graham.

Well, there's only a couple of reasons -

Firstly, modern Deism has been around upwards of 200 years whereas the vaccuum fluctuation theory is only a few years old. The relevance of this is that Deists have been using blanket generalities like "First Cause" and "God" since the beginning, so that it wouldn't have to adopt new terminologies everytime a new theory emerges regarding the creation of the universe; and

Secondly, I'm not certain that the vaccuum fluctuation theory is "accepted scientific fact". Given Deism's tendency to refrain from defining exactly what the "First Cause" is, such uncertainty - however slight - makes me reluctant to make any absolute assertions.

[Tricky]

Hi, Josh,
I don't know if the "vaccuum fluctuation" theory is commonly accepted in science now (remember, there are no "facts" in science) or if it is the "theory du jour". I think the point is that deists tend to personify something that is just a "natural" occurance. Why is it neccessary to call the beginning "God" or in any other way imply that it was conscious?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Tricky
Why is it neccessary to call the beginning "God" or in any other way imply that it was conscious?

That's what I have been wondering about deism, myself. Talking with one deists, he started talking about the "first cause", and then he went into not knowing what this theoretical god-thing can do, or even if it is concious. So why call it a god when whatever was the "first cause" is of theirs has no evidence or anything to back it up?

Methinks it is like an agnostic theism.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by wraith


hahaha
I really do enjoy watching an atheist proclaim that their religion is the one true faith....

the preaching of free-willy gods and double standards...haha and you call atheism rational? ...you really are the religious fanatics
:rolleyes:

We are ignorant of all things. Ultimately we know no more than anybody else who has ever lived. Such is our forlorn state confronting as we do a life of ultimate mystery, a Universe of ultimate mystery. Arguments will get us nowhere.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Eyes Shining Angrily

We are ignorant of all things. Ultimately we know no more than anybody else who has ever lived. Such is our forlorn state confronting as we do a life of ultimate mystery, a Universe of ultimate mystery. Arguments will get us nowhere.

Welcome to the boards, Eyes.

I must disagree with this statement, poetic though it is. While we will always confront mystery and in fact have more unanswered questions now than perhaps ever, it does not result from ignorance, but rather from knowledge. Because we have answered a lot of the questions that our ancestors could not, we have opened up great new areas to ask questions where there never would have been questions before.

I would also argue that arguements are essential. How can we differentiate good ideas from bad ideas without exposing the fallacies of each? For example, evolution has mostly supplanted creationism because it made better arguments. As a result, medicine and other sciences have benefitted greatly.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


That's what I have been wondering about deism, myself. Talking with one deists, he started talking about the "first cause", and then he went into not knowing what this theoretical god-thing can do, or even if it is concious. So why call it a god when whatever was the "first cause" is of theirs has no evidence or anything to back it up?

Methinks it is like an agnostic theism.

DC, at the risk of repeating myself (again) - to a Deist, "first cause" and "god" are synonyms, used interchangeably, and it is you who infers that the Deist is trying to personify the "first cause" because you are used to hearing the word "god" used in a personal context. Simply replace the word "god" with "first cause" if you like, or "starting gun" like I did earlier. It all means the samething: "that which created or caused the universe to exist".

[DialecticMaterialist]

You're going to have to elaborate on this, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Lets say I am saying what seperates life from nonlife is not carbon based chemistry but some magical vital fluid. This fluid is defined in such a way so as to be empirically untestable, much like God is in theism. Now would you be willing to say my viewpoint is on par with the other viewpoint that life is just chemistry and seperated from nonlife simply by more complex,carbon based chemistry? Is belief/disbelief in vitalism now equally rational?

According to your viewpoint you must, because the matter has been defined as non empirical. Further more you must also say that saying life is just chemistry now is an irrational viewpoint.

Mathematics is a system of adjectives used to describe, basically, "how many". It may not be scientific, but it isn't philisophical either.

It is nonetheless a nonempirical matter in which reasoning can sway us one way as opposed to another.

I understand what you mean when you say you don't think all positions on a non-scientific issue must be irrational; but I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. The only argument you can summon against the God hypothesis - that is, lack of evidence - is a scientific one. I think that trying to apply a scientific argument to an unscientific issue is what's irrational.

Actually my objection is not completely a scientific one but one informed by science. For the same reason I don't accept the idea that a God made the world in such a way as to make it appear as if it evolved(that is superfluous) I reject the God concept in the face of a materialist alternative.

My position is informed by science in much the same way as the, evolution only by appearance theory is. It provides a fairly stable view on which to base my points, a source of explanation, a sort of coherent system to work with and then choose over the theistic one. Declaring theism superfluous is the philosophical part, but it is informed by a science that paints a good enough picture to make God uneccessary.

Thus I am not simply say "there is a lack of evidence for theism thus there is no God" but that the lack of evidence makes theism unecessary, and hence spurrious. And also that another more probable explanation(that theism was invented by man) adds to this argument as it gives us a better alternative.

Thus I am saying "There is no evidence for theism, but there is evidence for a material universe and evidence that theism developed via natural means, this makes the God concept superfluous and probably false."



Agnosticism, as I understand it, does not give either case merit due to insufficient data, so I cannot agree with your statement. Agnosticism is the reservation of judgement, nothing more.

But is the data insufficient? The agnostic fails to say why exactly, other then theism is possible which is a very weak argument.(All sorts of things considered disproven, like creationism, are still possible.)

For the record, why is an acausal universe parsimonious, whereas a causal universe isn't?

Because the idea of a universe which came into being via a causal mechanism does not make sense.

The causal mechanism would have to first exist to make the universe, but the universe is technically "all that exists". So such a mechanism would already be part of the universe. That's sort of like asking "where is everywhere located?"

If however you mean simply the material stuff, then it's because we know physical substance exists but we do not know whether anything else, supernatural and such exists at all. Thus it makes more sense to posit an eternal physical universer at this point, then a universe with physical substance only temeperal PLUS supernatural substance that is eternal.

Also with theism problems concerning dualism crop up as well as questions of why an etenernal/perfect being would change(i.e. create stuff) add to theism/deism being incoherent.

Lastly theism implies things at odds with background knowledge:

- In it matter is created and destroyed.

- There is a force that goes faster then light.

To name but two.

To swallow theism I must then be able to swallow the above: which I see as improbable with our current knowledge.

In the end I think the problem is this: an agnostic is probably willing to reject creationism,spontanious generation, perpetual motions machines as false/improbable. But why? Because there is counter evidence. But what does this counter-evidence do exactly? What it does it not declare such things impossible but spurrious. Creationism,perpetual motion machines, and spontanious generation may all be true, perhaps all our evidence is wrong or they work in another dimension.

However one has to make a lot of unecessary assumptions to assume they are true, in which case a more parsimonious viewpoint is more rational and more likely to be true. Thus we accept the more rational viewpoint and declare the above examples false.

Now theism is superfluous from the start, it does not just fail the test and become superfluous but declares itself untestable from the outset. Now this may puzzle some who may think to give it a fair day we have to look all over the universe, but if anything it simply makes the case all the more unlikely as it is that much farther from a parsimonious/rational picture of the world.

Thus it differs from the idea of perpetual motion machines, which violate a specific part of our world view by violating our viewpoint in general. This causes confusion because we are used to having to test things before declaring spurrious but in reality, this only makes the matter that much more simple.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Lets say I am saying what seperates life from nonlife is not carbon based chemistry but some magical vital fluid. This fluid is defined in such a way so as to be empirically untestable, much like God is in theism. Now would you be willing to say my viewpoint is on par with the other viewpoint that life is just chemistry and seperated from nonlife simply by more complex,carbon based chemistry? Is belief/disbelief in vitalism now equally rational?

According to your viewpoint you must, because the matter has been defined as non empirical. Further more you must also say that saying life is just chemistry now is an irrational viewpoint.

You're misinterpreting the point of reference. In the example you give, you offer two possible solutions - one non-empirical, and one scientific. Naturally one would choose the scientific one over the non-empirical one, because the problem the solutions are supposed to answer is answerable scientifically. That is, one can measure and detect which processes are necessary for life vs processes that occur in non-living things. In such a case, an alternate non-empirical solution is unnecessary. But as far as the causation of the universe goes, the question is simply unanswerable scientifically, thus all proposed solutions are necessarily non-empirical, and thus equally invalid.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Actually my objection is not completely a scientific one but one informed by science. For the same reason I don't accept the idea that a God made the world in such a way as to make it appear as if it evolved(that is superfluous) I reject the God concept in the face of a materialist alternative.

My position is informed by science in much the same way as the, evolution only by appearance theory is. It provides a fairly stable view on which to base my points, a source of explanation, a sort of coherent system to work with and then choose over the theistic one. Declaring theism superfluous is the philosophical part, but it is informed by a science that paints a good enough picture to make God uneccessary.

Thus I am not simply say "there is a lack of evidence for theism thus there is no God" but that the lack of evidence makes theism unecessary, and hence spurrious. And also that another more probable explanation(that theism was invented by man) adds to this argument as it gives us a better alternative.

Thus I am saying "There is no evidence for theism, but there is evidence for a material universe and evidence that theism developed via natural means, this makes the God concept superfluous and probably false."

This is a fine argument against theism, but I fail to understand why a materialist universe negates the possibility of a causal one. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But is the data insufficient? The agnostic fails to say why exactly, other then theism is possible which is a very weak argument.(All sorts of things considered disproven, like creationism, are still possible.)

Explaining this is best left up to an agnostic, I think.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Because the idea of a universe which came into being via a causal mechanism does not make sense.

The causal mechanism would have to first exist to make the universe, but the universe is technically "all that exists". So such a mechanism would already be part of the universe. That's sort of like asking "where is everywhere located?"

And yet, "extra-universal" concepts are played with and offered up constantly, and those who play with them include some very notable astro-physicists. As I've been discussing with a few other people in this same thread, there are a few scientists who are of the opinion that the "initial singularity" was the result of sort of vaccuum fluctuation.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
If however you mean simply the material stuff, then it's because we know physical substance exists but we do not know whether anything else, supernatural and such exists at all. Thus it makes more sense to posit an eternal physical universer at this point, then a universe with physical substance only temeperal PLUS supernatural substance that is eternal.

Also with theism problems concerning dualism crop up as well as questions of why an etenernal/perfect being would change(i.e. create stuff) add to theism/deism being incoherent.

You are attributing an argument to me that I'm just plain not advancing. Deism is simply the claim that the universe is causal, and that whatever caused it does not interfere with it any longer. That's it - Deists do not advance any claims regarding perfection or eternity - indeed, it's quite possible that whatever caused or created the universe doesn't interfere because it's no longer around. Also, Deists in general tend to reject dualism.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Lastly theism implies things at odds with background knowledge:

- In it matter is created and destroyed.

- There is a force that goes faster then light.

To name but two.

To swallow theism I must then be able to swallow the above: which I see as improbable with our current knowledge.

Again, Deism is quite distinct from theism, and asserts neither of the above examples.

In addition, I see selective criticism at work. An acausal universe also implies that matter springs into existence from nothing - or alternately, a singularity whose existence must stretch infinitely long into the past yet whose existence is at the same time finite (because eventually the singularity stopped being a singularity).

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
In the end I think the problem is this: an agnostic is probably willing to reject creationism,spontanious generation, perpetual motions machines as false/improbable. But why? Because there is counter evidence. But what does this counter-evidence do exactly? What it does it not declare such things impossible but spurrious. Creationism,perpetual motion machines, and spontanious generation may all be true, perhaps all our evidence is wrong or they work in another dimension.

However one has to make a lot of unecessary assumptions to assume they are true, in which case a more parsimonious viewpoint is more rational and more likely to be true. Thus we accept the more rational viewpoint and declare the above examples false.

Now theism is superfluous from the start, it does not just fail the test and become superfluous but declares itself untestable from the outset. Now this may puzzle some who may think to give it a fair day we have to look all over the universe, but if anything it simply makes the case all the more unlikely as it is that much farther from a parsimonious/rational picture of the world.

Thus it differs from the idea of perpetual motion machines, which violate a specific part of our world view by violating our viewpoint in general. This causes confusion because we are used to having to test things before declaring spurrious but in reality, this only makes the matter that much more simple.

Once again, it is not the solution that is untestable, it is the nature of the problem itself. Indeed, there is no evidence to support the idea that the universe was caused - but there is no evidence to support the idea that the universe wasn't caused either. If we are to use what we observe to help decide between these two alternatives, it becomes clear that practically all events are causal in nature, and theoretical "acausal" events have not been demonstrated to physically occur yet. Thus, an acausal universe would be a departure from what we most commonly observe.

But that may be neither here nor there. The fact remains that both the causal and acausal models are unparsimonious, because while the causal model proposes an extra-universal event or object, the acausal model asserts that something can come from nothing, or that something with an infinite past can have a finite existence. Thus, the two proposals cancel each other out, and a decision can't be made between them based on parsimony.

As far as an appeal to materialism goes, materialism may very well negate the theist concept of an old man with a magic wand, but it simply does not negate the deistic concept of a causal universe. Deism does not deal in souls, divine favor or retribution, eternal bliss or damnation, or the mating of gods with humans.

[Fade]

Yeah, I guess we will just have to cancel SETI then, right Ken?

I guess those famous explorers of the past were irrational nitwit woo-woo's, eh Ken?

I bet those people who predicted germ theory, DNA, and atomic structures before seeing them were woo-woo's.

This, Whodini, is why I call you a troll. Nobody is so incredibly stupid as to think these things relate in any way to a theistic belief system. The people at SETI, for example, haven't set up the mission of "making contact with the life that IS OUT THERE." Their mission, their NAME is the "search" for the life that might be out there. There is no belief on their part. They haven't said aliens exist. They are passively conducting searches to see if there are, indeed, any aliens out there.

And I don't answer your questions because they are irrelevant flame-bait. Or, will you answer the question "Why do you enjoy molesting 10 year olds" for me?

[Fade]

Originally posted by Eyes Shining Angrily



SOCK. PUPPET.

[DialecticMaterialist]

You're misinterpreting the point of reference. In the example you give, you offer two possible solutions - one non-empirical, and one scientific. Naturally one would choose the scientific one over the non-empirical one, because the problem the solutions are supposed to answer is answerable scientifically. That is, one can measure and detect which processes are necessary for life vs processes that occur in non-living things. In such a case, an alternate non-empirical solution is unnecessary. But as far as the causation of the universe goes, the question is simply unanswerable scientifically, thus all proposed solutions are necessarily non-empirical, and thus equally invalid.

Same thing then with theism: the alternative supernaturalist solution is unecessary in the face of materialism.

Keep in mind in the above you state that the matter's being empirical is what makes it scientiic, while in my example the vitalic fluid was defined as nonempirical, just like the God of theism. At one point you are also labeling answers to science and others to what is "scientific"(a much vaguer term) in which case materialism can be said to be more scientific then tehism i.e. closer to what we know of science/not as far from in assumptions.


This is a fine argument against theism, but I fail to understand why a materialist universe negates the possibility of a causal one. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What makes you say a causal universe demands a god?

Explaining this is best left up to an agnostic, I think.

True, so I imagine you are not an agnostic. My mistake, sorry for the confusion. In any event then are you a deist or theist?

And yet, "extra-universal" concepts are played with and offered up constantly, and those who play with them include some very notable astro-physicists. As I've been discussing with a few other people in this same thread, there are a few scientists who are of the opinion that the "initial singularity" was the result of sort of vaccuum fluctuation.

Well I believe either such types are using a different definition of universe or are being irrational and the idea of a universe being created really does not make sense. Just because certain people adhere to nonsense, doesn't change the fact that it is nonsense.


You are attributing an argument to me that I'm just plain not advancing. Deism is simply the claim that the universe is causal, and that whatever caused it does not interfere with it any longer.

Okay, but the supernatural/spiritual God had to interfere with material sustance at the beggining, meaning that the problem of dualism still lives. How did the first nonmaterial God interact with the material substance?


That's it - Deists do not advance any claims regarding perfection or eternity - indeed, it's quite possible that whatever caused or created the universe doesn't interfere because it's no longer around. Also, Deists in general tend to reject dualism.

So would a deist by that token state that their God is a material being? In which case it can simply be treated like a sort of big foot claim, yes it may exist but it violates Occam's Razor to believe it does or did.

Again, Deism is quite distinct from theism, and asserts neither of the above examples.

Theism= belief in God. Deism=belief in a god that doesn't really interfere with the physical anymore. In which case deism is a school within theism.

In addition, I see selective criticism at work. An acausal universe also implies that matter springs into existence from nothing - or alternately, a singularity whose existence must stretch infinitely long into the past yet whose existence is at the same time finite (because eventually the singularity stopped being a singularity).

Or perhaps matter has always existed and the singularity(who's properties we know little of) is only the last known form it took. I admit my knowledge is limited on th exact state of matter, that it makes the most sense though to presume eternal matter though is a different claim and hence something I can know.





Once again, it is not the solution that is untestable, it is the nature of the problem itself. Indeed, there is no evidence to support the idea that the universe was caused - but there is no evidence to support the idea that the universe wasn't caused either.

Isn't assuming the problem is untestable from the get go sort of question begging?

Likewise there's no evidence that there isn't a perpetual motion machine, but it's still a safe bet to believe they don't exist. I imagine you can define any problem in such a way as to make it "untestable" by your given standard, but does that really mean it's now as rational as it's denial?


If we are to use what we observe to help decide between these two alternatives, it becomes clear that practically all events are causal in nature, and theoretical "acausal" events have not been demonstrated to physically occur yet. Thus, an acausal universe would be a departure from what we most commonly observe.

You are confusing the term causal, one within material existence the other in a "First Cause" way; both of which are completely different. This is merely another version of the Design Argument and the reasoning is backwards, yes we've observed causality but causality for existence itself or the universe as a whole we have not seen: instead we get the law of conservation of energy which says otherwise.

Also the matter is not purely an empirical one. We can use our thought to figure out that in the end, given this line of reasoning we will either 1) Have to end somewhere. Or 2) Be in infinite regress. And as infinite regress is superfluous and irrational(far more extraodrinary of a claim) I'd rather end it somewhere, and the material universe is the best known place where we can end it so far.


But that may be neither here nor there. The fact remains that both the causal and acausal models are unparsimonious, because while the causal model proposes an extra-universal event or object, the acausal model asserts that something can come from nothing, or that something with an infinite past can have a finite existence.

Well not exactly because the "causal" model presumes either something from nothing or an infinite past as well, for whatever extra-universal entity it proposes. Thus it has the problems of the acausal universe plus some.



As far as an appeal to materialism goes, materialism may very well negate the theist concept of an old man with a magic wand, but it simply does not negate the deistic concept of a causal universe. Deism does not deal in souls, divine favor or retribution, eternal bliss or damnation, or the mating of gods with humans.

The concept of a material god seems to go very much against the definition of the term, and simply posits a super-organism at odds with everything we know about organisms to date. (They need energy,have a metabolism, have evolved), which makes the entire position the equivalent to some cosmic cryptozoology claim. In which case this claim of a "super organism" which is some kind of alien I imagine, does not fit with how we know physical matter operates and is still superfluous,not via materialism, but via what we know of biology,physics and the probability of such an organism in general.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

You have a point. :D


Thank-you :)

As far as I know, the history of the universe can be traced back to the initial singularity. As it is (also as far as I know) impossible to gather any information from before the initial singularity, any guess as to what caused it is purely speculative - so I still don't believe science can reach such a conclusion.

I've heard of the vaccuum fluctuation theory, although I was unaware that it was as yet popularly accepted. I don't know the particulars of the theory, so I'm unable to answer here.

I'll answer these two together, if I may. First of all, as regards the vacuum fluctuation thing, it was an example I think you brought up as a possible scientific explanation of the start of the universe. I don't know much more about it than you do but I wasn't really concerned with whether it actually was the most popular current theory, I was just continuing with the same example.

Now: history before the singularity. Either time commenced with the Big Bang and thus there is no history before the singularity or there was time before the singularity, in which case there was at least one event ("God") before the singularity (if this is a false dichotomy, please feel free to correct me)

Any events can be observed by science - we may not yet have the tools with which to make certain observations but there is no real reason to assume that someday we won't advance that far.

By that reasoning "God" remains within the realm of science.


Well, there's only a couple of reasons -

Firstly, modern Deism has been around upwards of 200 years whereas the vaccuum fluctuation theory is only a few years old. The relevance of this is that Deists have been using blanket generalities like "First Cause" and "God" since the beginning, so that it wouldn't have to adopt new terminologies everytime a new theory emerges regarding the creation of the universe; and

Secondly, I'm not certain that the vaccuum fluctuation theory is "accepted scientific fact". Given Deism's tendency to refrain from defining exactly what the "First Cause" is, such uncertainty - however slight - makes me reluctant to make any absolute assertions.

I'll use bullet points too because I didn't know you could do that :D

Firstly, if you are just using "God" as a blanket term equivalent to "First Cause, wahtever that may be", how is deism different from Agnosticism (or is there not supposed to be a difference and I just missed that meeting?)

Secondly, I adressed the vacuum fluctuation thing above but, given Deism's tendency to refrain from defining exactly what the first cause is is holding the Deist position not going to be a considerable impediment to scientific progress? If we don't ever accept anything as a "working theory" how can we ever hope to progress to a final answer?

If you hold that there is no final answer then I think you have to once again place "God" outside of science which, as I discussed above, I can't see how he is.

Graham

[Checkmite]

For those waiting for a reply from me...

Sorry to disappoint you at the moment, but I'm not feeling much like debating lately. For no discernable reason, yesterday morning's tragedy has had a humbling effect on me, more so than any event as far back as I can remember.

Rest assured that once I've recovered, I'll pick up where we left off. Hope you understand...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
For those waiting for a reply from me...

Sorry to disappoint you at the moment, but I'm not feeling much like debating lately. For no discernable reason, yesterday morning's tragedy has had a humbling effect on me, more so than any event as far back as I can remember.

Rest assured that once I've recovered, I'll pick up where we left off. Hope you understand...
Of course we understand. For one as involved in astronomy (as your avatar shows) this was a tragedy worse than almost all others. Like you, I fervently hope that the US will continue its dedication to the space program. Otherwise everything those brave people believed in will be wasted.

Hope you are feeling better soon.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
For those waiting for a reply from me...

Sorry to disappoint you at the moment, but I'm not feeling much like debating lately. For no discernable reason, yesterday morning's tragedy has had a humbling effect on me, more so than any event as far back as I can remember.

Rest assured that once I've recovered, I'll pick up where we left off. Hope you understand...

No problem, happy to wait.

I must say though, watching the whole thing unfold on the news on Saturday (and watching the same 30 seconds of footage over and over again and hearing the inane babble of the commentators :rolleyes: ) I too was really quite upset - disproportionately so given the "scale" of the tradgedy in terms of lives lost and so on.

I think for me, the Space Program represents one of the few things in the world that rises above the daily grind of crime and wars, poverty and the pettiness of politics. I guess it always made me feel just a little bit better about things to know that somewhere up there, people were reaching for the stars.

I hope this doesn't provide an excuse to shut the program down, that would be a real shame and a great loss to our continuing drive for civilisation.

Graham

[metacristi]

Originally posted by Tricky

Deism, at least the way Joshua presents it, has no significant difference in its methodology from atheism. The reason I reject it is because it is less parsimonious. While both atheists and deists agree that they are unsure about the origin of the universe, deists add another thing, a "god", to be unsure about as well. The presence of this non-interfering god adds no key to solving the puzzle of origins, and thus is unnecessary.Sorry Josh.


Science does not imply atheism.Science strive to find the truth even to see whether God [creator of the universe] does exist or not.Since God cannot be 'probed' now science is silent in this topic,for the moment.Nothing more.


As far as belief is concerned atheism is a subjective choice too,equaly valid as agnostic theism.All are equally rational given that science cannot settle the problem either way.Sure some claim that there cannot exist a rational reason to believe,belief being necessarilly irrational.I don't think this is the case.I've presented my point of view extensivley on this very forum before.

Anyway my observation is that atheism is not the simpler position in what beleif is concerned.If we were to apply the principle of parsimony till the end then 'weak' agnosticism is the simpler position.

Indeed given that we do not have objective knowledge [nor sufficient scientific evidence to make one of the positions more plausible] either way in God's case [defined as the creator of the universe] the simpler and the most rational choice is to say 'I suspend judgement till science will settle the problem.At that moment I will beleive/disbelieve'.
In doing so the problem of 'belief' is avoided altoghether.No need for atheism if we were to apply the principle of simplicity till the end.Not even for 'weak' atheism with its 'lack of belief' since an 'weak' agnosticism is perfectly compatible with 'I will believe when I will have sufficient evidence'.However,in my opinion the principle of parsimony is irrelevant in what beleif is concerend,all positions are equally valid logically.
Even extremist positions are acceptable, despite not being supported by logic,of course as much as it is openly recognized that faith is the only 'reason' used to believe/disbelieve,without claims of having scientific 'proof',or 'evidence' that makes those positions more plausible than others,when in fact science cannot settle the problem.

[Franko]

Stimpson:

Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.

If you actually mean a word of what you are claiming you will prove it immediately by providing me with your argument (or train of thought) which indicates that Solipsism is False? (in other words you claim that the other entities are real. What is your empirical evidence for this claim based on the axioms of “Science”?)

I am betting you have no empirical evidence or logical argument, and instead you are going to have to rely on the dogma of A-Theism (an assumption or “framework” as you call it).

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you actually mean a word of what you are claiming you will prove it immediately by providing me with your argument (or train of thought) which indicates that Solipsism is False? (in other words you claim that the other entities are real. What is your empirical evidence for this claim based on the axioms of “Science”?)

I am betting you have no empirical evidence or logical argument, and instead you are going to have to rely on the dogma of A-Theism (an assumption or “framework” as you call it).

Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.

My evidence that this axiom is true is the fact that the set of axioms of science constitute a falsifiable, and thus testable, hypothesis. This hypothesis has been tested quite extensively, and never failed. This means that we can be as certain that the axioms of science are true as we can be of any proposition concerning the nature of reality.

Do you get it yet? The axioms are not just accepted by blind faith. They form a falsifiable hypothesis, and by testing that hypothesis we acquire supporting evidence (not formal proof) for it. That's how science works, Franko. Deal with it.

Dr. Stupid

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


If you actually mean a word of what you are claiming you will prove it immediately by providing me with your argument (or train of thought) which indicates that Solipsism is False? (in other words you claim that the other entities are real. What is your empirical evidence for this claim based on the axioms of “Science”?)

I am betting you have no empirical evidence or logical argument, and instead you are going to have to rely on the dogma of A-Theism (an assumption or “framework” as you call it). Empirical evidence that other entities are real?

1) Go down into the street, stand on corner.

2) Wait till big, mean looking guy walks by (the more tattoos the better).

3) Walk over to him and kick his ass, hard.

4) Empirical evidence will be forthcoming.

DISCLAIMER: This is a theorethical exercise. If you decide to test it in practice, you do so entirely on your own responsibility.

Hans :cool:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat




Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.



Why do you insist in contaminating science with metaphysics?? So much for your logical positivism :rolleyes: Whether or not solipsism is true is not important for the application and progress of science.

[Franko]

Stimpy: Apparently you don't read so good.

Let’s see … here’s what YOU said …

Stimpson: (original statement)
Wrong. I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true.

Okay, so where is your falsifiable hypothesis regarding Solipsism?

Franko:
If you actually mean a word of what you are claiming you will prove it immediately by providing me with your argument (or train of thought) which indicates that Solipsism is False? (in other words you claim that the other entities are real. What is your empirical evidence for this claim based on the axioms of “Science”?)

I am betting you have no empirical evidence or logical argument, and instead you are going to have to rely on the dogma of A-Theism (an assumption or “framework” as you call it).

Stimpson:
Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.

No … you said – I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true

Stimpson:
My evidence that this axiom is true is the fact that the set of axioms of science constitute a falsifiable, and thus testable, hypothesis. This hypothesis has been tested quite extensively, and never failed. This means that we can be as certain that the axioms of science are true as we can be of any proposition concerning the nature of reality.

So you assume that Solipsism is FALSE, and then you use this assumption to prove Solipsism is FALSE????????

Hey Stimpy, if that is what you call Science, then guess what – SCIENCE JUST PROVED GOD EXIST!!! Here I’ll use YOUR logic I assume that God Exist = True, and then I use this assumption to prove God Exist = True.

Wa-Laa!! Now I am a Physicist (snake oil salesman) just like YOU!

Do you get it yet? The axioms are not just accepted by blind faith.

If that is True, then what is your empirical evidence that Solipsism is False? (or … if you prefer … What is you evidence that I am real and not just a figment of your imagination. Note that I am not claiming to be real.)

They form a falsifiable hypothesis …

How do I go about testing your “hypothesis” that Solipsism is FALSE?

How do I go about testing your hypothesis that Matter makes consciousness?

These are just assumptions (Religious Dogma) on your part … aren’t they Stimpy?

and by testing that hypothesis we acquire supporting evidence (not formal proof) for it.

So what is your “supporting evidence” that Solipsism is False?

What is your "supporting evidence" that Matter makes consciousness?

I’ve heard individuals claim that John Edwards really can talk to Dead people. Do you consider this “supporting evidence” that John Edwards can talk to dead people???

That's how science works, Franko. Deal with it.

You have a lot to learn about Science Necromancer. You should stick to your petty little magic tricks for now.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why do you insist in contaminating science with metaphysics?? So much for your logical positivism :rolleyes: Whether or not solipsism is true is not important for the application and progress of science.
Certainly if solipsism were true, it would pretty much demolish the basis of science. Only problem is, how can you ever test this? Any recommendations?

Do you have a proposal as to how science would change in its "applications and progress" if a solipsistic model were accepted?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you insist in contaminating science with metaphysics?? So much for your logical positivism Whether or not solipsism is true is not important for the application and progress of science.

Whether or not it is metaphysics depends on how you define the term. Since the axioms of science form a falsifiable hypothesis, I would claim that they are not metaphysical.

Of course, you can define metaphysical any way you want to. I couldn't care less whether you call the axioms of science metaphysical or not. All that matters to me is that they form a falsifiable framework, from which the scientific method can be built.

Furthermore, all of the methods for eliminating subjective bias from our experiences depend on the assumption of an objective reality. If we assume that reality is simply our experiences, then the concept of objective bias doesn't even make sense.

It's like this. If reality is just my experiences, then reality can not be logical and consistent, because my experiences aren't. I would think you would agree that logic and consistency are both requirements of science? If so, then the axiom of objectivity must be introduced as well. The only way reality can be logical and consistent, is if reality is not my experiences themselves, but instead something which my experiences give me (imperfect) information.

(Actually, I could assume that reality is logical and consistent, but that my experiences don't give me information about it. But clearly science can't work then, either.)

Incidentally, do you consider the axioms that reality is logical and consistent to be "metaphysical"?

Dr. Stupid

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

Okay, so where is your falsifiable hypothesis regarding Solipsism?

Dude, the hypothesis that the scientific method should work at all is a falsifiable hypothesis! If solipsism were true, or if any of the other axioms of science were false, then there would be absolutely no logical reason to expect science to work at all. But it does. That is empirical evidence that the axioms of science are true. That is how all empirical evidence is acquired. You formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, and then you test it. If the hypothesis passes all your tests, then that is supporting evidence for it. The more tests it passes, the more reliable the evidence.

Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No … you said – I never told you that the assumptions that are absolutely necessary to science are theories that you believe are true without substantial evidence to back them up. On the contrary, I went to great pains to explain exactly how the axioms of science, when combined, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis, and why the success of the scientific method constitutes supporting evidence for the belief that those axioms are true

Yeah, so what's the problem? I also told you that the rejection of solipsism is one of the axioms of science. Exactly which part of this are you having a problem with?

My evidence that this axiom is true is the fact that the set of axioms of science constitute a falsifiable, and thus testable, hypothesis. This hypothesis has been tested quite extensively, and never failed. This means that we can be as certain that the axioms of science are true as we can be of any proposition concerning the nature of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you assume that Solipsism is FALSE, and then you use this assumption to prove Solipsism is FALSE????????

No, I take the falsehood of solipsism as an axiom of my framework, and then test that framework against my observations of reality. I then conclude from the fact that the framework accurately describes reality, that solipsism is also false for reality.

Hey Stimpy, if that is what you call Science, then guess what – SCIENCE JUST PROVED GOD EXIST!!! Here I’ll use YOUR logic I assume that God Exist = True, and then I use this assumption to prove God Exist = True.

That isn't how it works, and you know it. Your hypothesis must be falsifiable. And only by testing the hypothesis can you determine that the hypothesis is true.

Wa-Laa!! Now I am a Physicist (snake oil salesman) just like YOU!

No, you are an intellectually dishonest liar, who seems to get off on wasting people's time with your idiotic attempts at philosophy.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Stimply

Dude, the hypothes is that the Theism should work at all is a falsifiable hypothesis! If A-Theism (pseudo-Materialism) were true, or if any of the other axioms of Theism were false, then there would be absolutely no logical reason to expect Theism to work at all. But it does. That is empirical evidence that the axioms of Theism are true. That is how all empirical evidence is acquired. You formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, and then you test it. If the hypothesis passes all your tests, then that is supporting evidence for it. The more tests it passes, the more reliable the evidence.

Yeah, so what's the problem? I also told you that the rejection of A-Theism (pseudo-materialism) is one of the axioms of Theism. Exactly which part of this are you having a problem with?

No, I take the falsehood of A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism/”free willy” as an axiom of my framework, and then test that framework against my observations of reality. I then conclude from the fact that the framework accurately describes reality, that A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism/”free willy” are also false for reality.

That isn't how it works, and you know it. Your hypothesis must be falsifiable. And only by testing the hypothesis can you determine that the hypothesis is true. (so how do you Falsify Pseudo-Materialism/Atheism/Solipsism/”Free willy” again?)

No, you are an intellectually dishonest liar, who seems to get off on wasting people's time with your idiotic attempts at philosophy and “sigh-ance”.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

Dude, the hypothes is that the Theism should work at all is a falsifiable hypothesis! If A-Theism (pseudo-Materialism) were true, or if any of the other axioms of Theism were false, then there would be absolutely no logical reason to expect Theism to work at all. But it does. That is empirical evidence that the axioms of Theism are true. That is how all empirical evidence is acquired. You formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, and then you test it. If the hypothesis passes all your tests, then that is supporting evidence for it. The more tests it passes, the more reliable the evidence.

Except that Theism doesn't work, and never has.

This is stupid, Franko. Who do you think you are fooling with this nonsense?

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Except that A-Theism/Pseudo-Materialism doesn't work, and never has.

This is stupid, Stimpy. Who do you think you are fooling with this nonsense?

Magic Sheepskin my Ass!

[Stimpson J. Cat]

So this is what you are reduced to?:rolleyes:

The last person who tried this debating tactic with me was 8.

Pathetic.:(

Dr. Stupid:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you don't read so good. I already told you that the rejection of Solipsism is one of the axioms of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you insist in contaminating science with metaphysics?? So much for your logical positivism Whether or not solipsism is true is not important for the application and progress of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Whether or not it is metaphysics depends on how you define the term.



I define it the same way as it is universally understood.



Since the axioms of science form a falsifiable hypothesis, I would claim that they are not metaphysical.


A non-Solipsistic position is not falisifiable. And it's not an axiom of science in anycase.





Of course, you can define metaphysical any way you want to.



Thanks, but I'll stick with its proper meaning.



I couldn't care less whether you call the axioms of science metaphysical or not.



I didn't claim they were. Nevertheless some of them indeed may be metaphysical such as the presumption that nature is uniform and the future will resemble the past and so on.



All that matters to me is that they form a falsifiable framework, from which the scientific method can be built.


The axioms don't need to be falsifiable. What matters is that science works.



Furthermore, all of the methods for eliminating subjective bias from our experiences depend on the assumption of an objective reality.


Subjective bias?? I take it you mean subjective reality?



It's like this. If reality is just my experiences, then reality can not be logical and consistent, because my experiences aren't.



Why aren't they?




I would think you would agree that logic and consistency are both requirements of science? If so, then the axiom of objectivity must be introduced as well. The only way reality can be logical and consistent, is if reality is not my experiences themselves, but instead something which my experiences give me (imperfect) information.



Objective reality still exists from the solipsistic perspective. It's what you and the p-zombies agree is real. It is all that which can be established from the third person perspective.



Incidentally, do you consider the axioms that reality is logical and consistent to be "metaphysical"?


I don't know because it is unclear to me what is meant by stating that reality is logical and consistent. Tell me what reality would be like if it were logical but inconsistent, illogical but consistent, and illogical and inconsistent.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Indeed given that we do not have objective knowledge [nor sufficient scientific evidence to make one of the positions more plausible] either way in God's case [defined as the creator of the universe] the simpler and the most rational choice is to say 'I suspend judgement till science will settle the problem.At that moment I will beleive/disbelieve'.
In doing so the problem of 'belief' is avoided altoghether.No need for atheism if we were to apply the principle of simplicity till the end.Not even for 'weak' atheism with its 'lack of belief' since an 'weak' agnosticism is perfectly compatible with 'I will believe when I will have sufficient evidence'.However,in my opinion the principle of parsimony is irrelevant in what beleif is concerend,all positions are equally valid logically.


Problems: 1) The weak agnosticism here is not even mutually exclusive with weak atheism.

2) This presumes that materialist or naturalistic generalizations are unwarranted: which is simply not true. I see no reason why I cannot for example presume that a planet in another galaxy is material instead of remaining "agnostic" on the issue. One only need to extend this reasoning to the entire universe for the atheist position to be established. We know matter exists, so we extend that until monism. The only possible opposite(dualism or supernaturalism, or super-organisms) are thus superfluous in the face of this.

3) Your standard is far too broad. According to this I have to be "agnostic" to any claim concerning a super-organism: even Klingons. What must be recognized is we have a world view available and a substance: in which god is a superfluous entity.

The problem with your world view is that thus it ignores the fact that the monist option is a working one. Remember the principle of parsimony applies to explanation: not beliefs. It's not "believe as little as possible" but "use as little assumptions as possible to explain things" agnosticism fails in this respect as it explains nothing at all, whereas monist materialism does in the simplest way available.

In other words: a nonanswer does not equal the simplest answer.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Whether or not it is metaphysics depends on how you define the term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I define it the same way as it is universally understood.

I know of no universal understanding of that term. I have heard different people define it in completely different ways. I do not know precisely what you mean by it.

Since the axioms of science form a falsifiable hypothesis, I would claim that they are not metaphysical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A non-Solipsistic position is not falisifiable. And it's not an axiom of science in anycase.

The rejection of solipsism is an axiom of science, and it is the complete set of axioms that is falsifiable. None of the axioms are individually falsifiable. That is why a framework is needed.

All that matters to me is that they form a falsifiable framework, from which the scientific method can be built.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The axioms don't need to be falsifiable. What matters is that science works.

It does matter if you want the scientific method to actually be a coherent logical framework for understanding reality, instead of simply a heuristic method that seems to work, without having any idea of why.

Furthermore, all of the methods for eliminating subjective bias from our experiences depend on the assumption of an objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subjective bias?? I take it you mean subjective reality?

No. Obviously not.

It's like this. If reality is just my experiences, then reality can not be logical and consistent, because my experiences aren't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why aren't they?

Well, apparently the reason is because our perceptions are filtered through our brains in an imperfect manner. As for how I know that my experiences aren't logical and consistent, that is a trivial observation.

I would think you would agree that logic and consistency are both requirements of science? If so, then the axiom of objectivity must be introduced as well. The only way reality can be logical and consistent, is if reality is not my experiences themselves, but instead something which my experiences give me (imperfect) information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objective reality still exists from the solipsistic perspective. It's what you and the p-zombies agree is real. It is all that which can be established from the third person perspective.

You are clearly confused. From the solipsistic perspective there is no third person perspective. There are no other people. There is only your experiences. Nothing is objective.

Incidentally, do you consider the axioms that reality is logical and consistent to be "metaphysical"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know because it is unclear to me what is meant by stating that reality is logical and consistent. Tell me what reality would be like if it were logical but inconsistent, illogical but consistent, and illogical and inconsistent.

If it were logical, but inconsistent, then the laws of physics could change from one observation to the next. Gravity could change strength overnight, or the mass of the electron could double next year. We have to assume a certain degree of consistency in the natural laws, in order to have any hope of being able to understand them.

As for the illogical cases, I cannot explain what they would be like. It is not possible to coherently describe something which is not logical. of course, that is exactly why science must assume that reality is logical.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

So this is what you are reduced to?

The last person who tried this debating tactic with me was 8.

Pathetic.:(

Hey … then why don’t your try and answer a question for a change “Scientist”?

How do I go about testing your “hypothesis” that Solipsism is FALSE?

How do I go about testing your hypothesis that Matter makes consciousness?

These are just assumptions (Religious Dogma) on your part … aren’t they Stimpy?

So what is your “supporting evidence” that Solipsism is False?

What is your "supporting evidence" that Matter makes consciousness?

I’ve heard individuals claim that John Edwards really can talk to Dead people. Do you consider this “supporting evidence” that John Edwards can talk to dead people???

[DialecticMaterialist]

How do I go about testing your ?hypothesis? that Solipsism is FALSE?

If it were true why would you be asking me this question? This is a philosophical matter, not scientific. And in terms of philosophy its false more or less at the axiomic level. Also because solipisism creates many problems and leads to a somewhat incoherent system.

How do I go about testing your hypothesis that Matter makes consciousness?

See if there is a way to explain consciousness via matter....then if there is regard the alternative as superfluous.


So what is your ?supporting evidence? that Solipsism is False?

Basically the same as that making the idea of a square-circle false. Also solipsism leaves some problematic questions like: if everything is made by your where did YOU come from? or were you eternal? Why is there change? Why do I lack a sort of omnipotence? etc.

What is your "supporting evidence" that Matter makes consciousness?

We know there is matter. We know there is consciousness. We have a way of explaining consciousness via matter. Thus since monism is more parsimonous then dualism, it is more reasonable to conclude that consciousness is material. Likewise I've yet to see something pop out of thin air simply because a person wanted it to.

[Franko]

If it were true why would you be asking me this question?

Maybe I’m not asking, maybe you are just imagining that I ‘m asking?

This is a philosophical matter, not scientific.

If you say so, but considering that there are no scientists your claim is rather ludicrous.

And in terms of philosophy its false more or less at the axiomic level.

How so, because you want to pretend that it isn’t True?

You’re God, do whatever you want!

Also because solipisism creates many problems and leads to a somewhat incoherent system.

How is the system any less coherent just because the algorithm is running in your head? The equation is what makes reality coherent.

Franko:
How do I go about testing your hypothesis that Matter makes consciousness?

DialecticMaterialist:
See if there is a way to explain consciousness via matter....then if there is regard the alternative as superfluous.

Kind of like when a Christian sees if there is a way to explain reality via God … then if there is he regards the alternative as superfluous?

How is what you are doing any different?

Franko:
So what is your ?supporting evidence? that Solipsism is False?

DialecticMaterialist:
Basically the same as that making the idea of a square-circle false.

A square-circle is a logical contradiction, because something cannot be “circular” (all points equidistant from the center) and be a square (four equal length sides with right angles) at the same time.

But there is NO such logical contradiction implied in Solipsism. In fact, if Materialism is true, then Solipsism is (by necessity) more True because Solipsism is exactly the same as Materialism, it is just more parsimonious (and thus more logical).

Let me ask you this, as a Materialist you believe that a unified theory of physics exist – correct? You believe that there is a TOE (theory of everything) that explains how the four forces interact and operate.

What makes you believe that the equation for TOE doesn’t already exist inside your subconscious mind? Why is it so hard for you to accept that your mind is the source of reality?

Do you ever dream at night? Ever had a lucid dream where the people and events seemed very realistic? Obviously your mind is capable of generating a reality. What makes you so certain that this isn’t what’s happening this very moment?

Also solipsism leaves some problematic questions like: if everything is made by your [mind] where did YOU come from?

Also Materialism leaves some problematic questions like: if everything appeared in the “big bang”, then where did YOU (the Universe) come from?

Why is YOU appearing magically out of no where more far fetched then an entire Universe magically appearing?

[Watcher]

Originally posted by Franko
Solipsism is exactly the same as Materialism, it is just more parsimonious (and thus more logical).

Let's see...

According to dictionary.com:
Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Solipsism: The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Yep, exactly the same. :rolleyes:

[Franko]

Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Solipsism: The theory that physical reality is the product of the mind and that everything, including thought, feeling, matter, and will, can be explained in terms of the self. Physical phenomena are simply an illusion in the mind. Essentially Solipsism is the view that Materialism is True, but that the unified equation of physics already exist in the subconscious mind of the Solipsist “God” generating reality and “reading” this post.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Maybe I’m not asking, maybe you are just imagining that I ‘m asking?

From my viewpoint if I was a solipsist. But if YOU are the solipsist, why are you asking me this?



If you say so, but considering that there are no scientists your claim is rather ludicrous.


There are no scientists? Oh-tay.



How so, because you want to pretend that it isn’t True?

You’re God, do whatever you want!


Not pretend. It isn't. Self-evidently so.


How is the system any less coherent just because the algorithm is running in your head? The equation is what makes reality coherent.

Solipsism does not tell why sensations change, why I am not omnipotent, why I have unpleasant sensations, what could create me/if I'm eternal.



Kind of like when a Christian sees if there is a way to explain reality via God … then if there is he regards the alternative as superfluous?

Does he regard the alternative as superfluous? Also, we can see matter, I am yet to see God.

A square-circle is a logical contradiction, because something cannot be “circular” (all points equidistant from the center) and be a square (four equal length sides with right angles) at the same time.


Yes the law of noncontradiction but how is that itself established.

But there is NO such logical contradiction implied in Solipsism.

In a sense it is as it goes against something I consider to be self-evident: objectivism.


In fact, if Materialism is true, then Solipsism is (by necessity) more True because Solipsism is exactly the same as Materialism, it is just more parsimonious (and thus more logical).

Parsimony was developed because people can make stuff up and be wrong about their description of reality. The Principle of Parsimony(POP) was developed because if a person was allowed to make as many assumptions as he or she wished....he or she could literally put forth anything as a solid theory.

Now if solipsism is true, there really is no belief that is wrong and no person making something up. Thus the POP makes no sense and has no use.

Hence Objectivism must underly POP; for without an objective world it makes little sense to say one's belief is "made up." or purely a product of imagination. This makes the principle of parsimony at odds with solipsism.

Let me ask you this, as a Materialist you believe that a unified theory of physics exist – correct?

Not yet, though I imagine scientists are wroking on it.

You believe that there is a TOE (theory of everything) that explains how the four forces interact and operate.

Nope.

What makes you believe that the equation for TOE doesn’t already exist inside your subconscious mind?

That's be spurrious and at odds with the fact that I don't believe in a subconscious mind.


Why is it so hard for you to accept that your mind is the source of reality?

Because that is incoherent and fundamentally absurd. I do not believe that for the same reason I do not believe that 2 plus 2 can ever equal 15.

Do you ever dream at night? Ever had a lucid dream where the people and events seemed very realistic? Obviously your mind is capable of generating a reality.

My dream is precisely that because it feels different then a waking state and it is not true. Without an objective basis a dream ceases to be a dream.


What makes you so certain that this isn’t what’s happening this very moment?


I'm not 100 percent certain though, given some objectivity and background knowledge via correlation as an axiom; I can say I'm very,very,close to certain.


Also Materialism leaves some problematic questions like: if everything appeared in the “big bang”, then where did YOU (the Universe) come from?

I say matter, in the broadest sense, is eternal. Do you maintain the same for the self? If so how come I cannot remember this?

Why is YOU appearing magically out of no where more far fetched then an entire Universe magically appearing?

I don't believe the universe magically appeared.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Solipsism: The theory that physical reality is the product of the mind and that everything, including thought, feeling, matter, and will, can be explained in terms of the self. Physical phenomena are simply an illusion in the mind. Essentially Solipsism is the view that Materialism is True, but that the unified equation of physics already exist in the subconscious mind of the Solipsist “God” generating reality and “reading” this post.

You must not be speaking English because in every dictionary and philosophy text I know of: that is not solipsism. The first half of that is subjective idealism though you must include that fact that only you exist and others are illusions for full blown solipsism.

[Franko]

You must not be speaking English because in every dictionary and philosophy text I know of: that is not solipsism. The first half of that is subjective idealism though you must include that fact that only you exist and others are illusions for full blown solipsism.

Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …

[MRC_Hans]

Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism --- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity. And an unneccessary one. Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Hans

[DialecticMaterialist]

Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn?t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing

This is not solipsism. It resembles objective idealism a bit but not entirely. This is the definition of solipsism:

sol·ip·sism [Audio pronunciation of solipsism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solipsism

It is incompatible with objectivism, which is necessary for both materialism and parsimony.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
--- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity. And an unneccessary one. Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Hans
Don't be obtuse, Hans. Solipsism is more parsimonious because it is like materialism without the materials! Fewer materials to clutter it up obviously make it more parsimonious.:rolleyes:

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

Don't be obtuse, Hans. Solipsism is more parsimonious because it is like materialism without the materials! Fewer materials to clutter it up obviously make it more parsimonious.:rolleyes:

Agreed. Now if we could only figure out how to get rid of the solipsist in the solipsism theory, then we would have a truly parsimonious theory.

[MRC_Hans]

Ehh, you can say that ;), but somebody who keeps hammering on about how we obey tlop cant. Not if he cares about logical consistency, but then, I have seen no evidence that he does.

Hans

[Franko]

Franko:
Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …

MRC:
--- And this is exactly the parsimony argument against Solipsism: Materialism already explains all we observe, so adding a hypothetical entity to imagine it all is an extra complexity.

How are YOU a hypothetical entity? You have it backwards … it’s the Universe and all the “matter” that is hypothetical. If you are reading these words, then you are definitely real. I mean, after all, how can you be imagining yourself???

And an unneccessary one.

How are YOU unnecessary? Could you explain that?

Which observations are explained by Solipsism that are not already explained by Materialism? Which predictions do Solipsism make that cannot be predicted by Materialism?

Solipsism explains everything that Materialism explains. Solipsism makes all the same predictions that Materialism does.

The main difference between Solipsism and Materialism (A-Theism) is that in Materialism you have to account for an entire universe magically appearing, and in Solipsism you only have to account for YOU magically appearing – the Universe is just a figment of your imagination, after all.

[Franko]

This is not solipsism. It resembles objective idealism a bit but not entirely. This is the definition of solipsism:

What difference does any of that make? You are all alone in the Universe. No one else is real. Deal with it.

It is incompatible with objectivism, which is necessary for both materialism and parsimony.

Hey I don’t even exist, so whatever you say goes. I just thought you wanted to be reminded of what is really happening in reality. I guess “I” was wrong?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Let me put it to you like this. Solipsism is simply a more parsimonious version of the Theory of Materialism. Everything that is True under Materialism is also True under Solipsism, however unlike Materialism Solipsism doesn’t have to magically account for the existence of an entire Universe which is only a figment of the readers imagination anyway. No Solipsism is the same exact theory as Materialism, except in Solipsism, only YOU popped out of nothing …
And of course, Logical Deism is yet more parsimonious than Solipsism, even though it postulates a universe that magically pops out of nothing. Golly! This has got more loops than an Alabama family tree.

[Franko]

And of course, Logical Deism is yet more parsimonious than Solipsism, even though it postulates a universe that magically pops out of nothing. Golly! This has got more loops than an Alabama family tree.

Silly A-Theist! The Universe didn't pop out of Nothing. It popped out of your head when you imagined it!

[Tricky]

Reviving this thread since Hal brought up the Deism issue. I realize that nobody is skeptical about everything, but is Deism a more egregious breach of skepticality than say, trusting the weatherman? I'd be interested to hear what Joshua Korosi has to say about Hal's commentary.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Personally I see Deism as the most defensible/rational kind of theism.

Mainly because it is not so directly at odds with the facts as lets say, the God of creationists or theistic evolution.

In fact the more distant a God is the more rational it is, but imo it is never as rational a position as atheism.

Gods that are involved in claims directly relating to fact are easily and directly disproven, via showing the facts underlying the God are said to be wrong.

i.e. God of theistic evolution, "God directs evolution, i.e. evolution is teleological."


This can be shown to be false easily, so the God os theistic evolution is.

Basically, because Darwinian evolution is true.

Now this formula follows.

If G(God) then TE. (Theistic Evolution)

If TE no DE. (DE=Darwinian Evolution)

DE.

Hence no TE.

Hence no G.


Thus evidence for Darwinian evolution is evidence against theistic evolution and the God who is said to direct evolution.

However the Deist can distance his God more then this, making it less obviously testable. Lets say to making the material universe and natural laws.


If God then Material Universe and Natural Laws.

There really is no way to disprove this via a matter of pure fact.

However it is obviously superfluous and becomes more superfluous the more untestable claims are made.

This being superfluous is not as directly at odds with much of the facts as lets say a fundamentalist God. As in that example you just imagine a Deity and creation(perhaps even afterlife and soul.)

But in the one of theistic evolution, you imagine a deity, creation, everything deists do PLUS Theistic evolution.

[c4ts]

http://deism.org/ageofreason.htm