God versus IPU's

[billydkid]

I was thinking about this god vs. invisible pink unicorns thing. I was having trouble with this: I can comfortably say I don't believe in god and I believe there isn't a god, but I can't comfortably say, simply, there isn't a isn't god while I can easily say there aren't IPU's. I realized it really has nothing to do with all that BS about soft atheism or hard atheism which is a bunch of, well, BS. What dawned me, duh, was that the single thing that distinguishes IPU's from "god" is that is that IPU's are specifically, extremely well defined entities. Of course, being invisible and all, you could never know if they were they were there anyway, but they are fundamentally ridiculous in their conception.

Once you give a "god" any sort of particular attribute at all it becomes very easy to decide or say whether he is there or not. Suppose, for example, the god we are talking about is Zeus or Poseidon (sp) or someone in particular, with particular characteristics. Then, yes, it is easy to say there is no god. So, I think we need some new completely ineffable counter entity instead of IPU's. It is IPU's very particularness that makes them vulnerable just as it's "god's" ineffability that makes him such a daunting foe.

[Sindai]

I don't find something daunting when no one can even describe what it is. "Vague to the point of uselessness" covers it better.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Sindai
I don't find something daunting when no one can even describe what it is. "Vague to the point of uselessness" covers it better.
I'll second that. Maybe "nebulous invisible pink unicorns"?

[Yahzi]

No, it should be: "non-visible entities of indeterminate color."

There, that's all better now.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by billydkid
I was thinking about this god vs. invisible pink unicorns thing. I was having trouble with this: I can comfortably say I don't believe in god and I believe there isn't a god, but I can't comfortably say, simply, there isn't a isn't god while I can easily say there aren't IPU's. I realized it really has nothing to do with all that BS about soft atheism or hard atheism which is a bunch of, well, BS. What dawned me, duh, was that the single thing that distinguishes IPU's from "god" is that is that IPU's are specifically, extremely well defined entities. Of course, being invisible and all, you could never know if they were they were there anyway, but they are fundamentally ridiculous in their conception.

Which is part of the reason that whenever I have this discussion with a theist, I attempt to get them to define what it is when they say (g)(G)od. Until they do that, we are just discussing Frybbles, and I don't really know what they are talking about. Once they do define the terms, it usually also ends up being fundamentally ridiculous. If they don't define the terms and concepts, then it will turn into bout of chasing the gods, in which they somewhat nebulously define the god, I refute it, and then get an answer of "that isn't my god"...then they redefine the god, and I refute that one..."that isn't my god"...ad nauseum. I'm tired of it, and the game isn't fun anymore.

Once you give a "god" any sort of particular attribute at all it becomes very easy to decide or say whether he is there or not. Suppose, for example, the god we are talking about is Zeus or Poseidon (sp) or someone in particular, with particular characteristics. Then, yes, it is easy to say there is no god.

Usually, yes. Other times it just turns out to be a "so what?" god.
"oh...so you are saying that god is a wax turnip on your coffee table, the the sun shines on in the morning? so what?" :p Kachina dolls are 'so what?' gods, IMO.


So, I think we need some new completely ineffable counter entity instead of IPU's. It is IPU's very particularness that makes them vulnerable just as it's "god's" ineffability that makes him such a daunting foe.

I like the IPU. :cool: But the folks that follow the popular interpretations of the scriptures got the pizza part incorrect. Pineapple on pizza is just wrong, in so many ways. ;)

[evildave]

God used to be very well defined. You believed in God, in just this way, or, well, they killed you.

The religiously afflicted have more of a 'gosh' now than a 'god'.

They used to believe that holy law was so inflexible that babies who had not accepted Jesus would ALL perish eternally in lakes of fire.

Now they're darned to 'heck', if not outright forgiven, since the believers can't really spread their sickness so well when it's as bitter as condemning infants to eternal torment.

It also illustrates how clearly religious dogma and "holy" things are controlled by people and their politics, and not by any wise and omnipotent being.

As for Invisible Pink Unicorns (or other inconspicuous equidae with odd colorations and growths), who's to say? At least nobody's killing each other over them here on Earth, as far as I know.

[Yahzi]

The religiously afflicted have more of a 'gosh' now than a 'god'.
Now that's a line worth repeating!

[Dancing David]

One of friends uses the following analogy to lampoon god.

There is a race of pink elephants that lives at the center of the earth. They are so technologicaly advanced that they control our lives and will evade all attempts to detect them.

Every argument to prove the existance of god and he just brings up his theory and compares it.

Shh, now the elephants are listening, better stop typing about it.

[evildave]

Careful, now. If you anger the undetectable elephants, they'll stomp around and cause earthquakes.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by evildave
The religiously afflicted have more of a 'gosh' now than a 'god'.

When I was an orthodox Catholic, that sort of wishy washy religion didn't wash over with me. I realized that they had conceded too much. God had been pushed into irrelevance.

I think I was right. By the time I became a wishy washy christian, I needed only a little prod into becoming a hard atheist.

[Nucular]

Thing is, though, the fact that the IPUs are so well-defined, means we can actually discover that they cannot exist.

Surely nothing can be both invisible and pink?

Pink is our perception of a particular part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. So, if something is pink, then by definition it's visible.

Therefore invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

Unless your faith is strong enough :rolleyes:

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Nucular
Thing is, though, the fact that the IPUs are so well-defined, means we can actually discover that they cannot exist.

Surely nothing can be both invisible and pink?

Pink is our perception of a particular part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. So, if something is pink, then by definition it's visible.

Their coincident pinkness and invisibility is a miracle. :p

Therefore invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

Unless your faith is strong enough :rolleyes:

See? You do understand.;)

[evildave]

Perhaps they are invisble because they are good at hiding.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Nucular,

Surely nothing can be both invisible and pink?

Silly cynical skeptic :rolleyes:

They are only invisible when somebody is looking at them (or trying to take their picture, or view them electronically). When nobody is looking, they are pink.

Dr. Stupid

[slimshady2357]

Basically, for me, the reason IPU's are different from the concept of a God is that there is no reason to postulate an IPU.

The fact of existence itself needs explaining, or at least feels like it does. Some concept of 'God' or 'Unity' is one way of addressing this question.

Just saying the universe has always existed (or perhaps String Theory is your bag :)) is no better in my mind at attempting to answer this question.

It's possible that asking "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a meaningless question, but to many people it seems on a deep level to be worth considering (and not just religious people).

Adam

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Nucular,



Silly cynical skeptic :rolleyes:

They are only invisible when somebody is looking at them (or trying to take their picture, or view them electronically). When nobody is looking, they are pink.

Dr. Stupid Hmmm... we should rename them Alternately Invisible or Pink Unicorns which Hide Sometimes (AIPUHS).

But wait... is pink still pink when we're not looking at it? Do colours imply some kind of subjective experience? Because surely it only really becomes a colour when it's processed in some kind of conscious brain; before that, it's just an oscillation, isn't it?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Basically, for me, the reason IPU's are different from the concept of a God is that there is no reason to postulate an IPU.

The fact of existence itself needs explaining, or at least feels like it does. Some concept of 'God' or 'Unity' is one way of addressing this question.

Just saying the universe has always existed (or perhaps String Theory is your bag :)) is no better in my mind at attempting to answer this question.

It's possible that asking "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a meaningless question, but to many people it seems on a deep level to be worth considering (and not just religious people).

Adam Well clearly the existence of God would also then require explanation.

And who's to say the IPUs (or AIPUHS) aren't responsible for the creation of the universe? They're good at hiding, so they might be that clever.

[Samus]

Originally posted by billydkid
I was thinking about this god vs. invisible pink unicorns thing. I was having trouble with this: I can comfortably say I don't believe in god and I believe there isn't a god, but I can't comfortably say, simply, there isn't a isn't god while I can easily say there aren't IPU's. You're not alone. Obviously, if you cannot clearly define the concept, you cannot prove or disprove it. That was the main roadblock with my theism/atheism decision. How can I say, with any certainty, that there is no god(s) when I can't even get a handle on who this god character is?

The solution is to study many religions, and many cultures' concepts of god(s). Having that knowledge, one can draw the conclusion that any or all of these concepts of god(s) are or are not feasible.

I can't write off theism by comparing it to IPU because theism comes in many flavors, while IPUs don't.

Originally posted by billydkid
I realized it really has nothing to do with all that BS about soft atheism or hard atheism which is a bunch of, well, BS. Hey! I guess that will be my legacy in these parts...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dwb
You're not alone. Obviously, if you cannot clearly define the concept, you cannot prove or disprove it. That was the main roadblock with my theism/atheism decision. How can I say, with any certainty, that there is no god(s) when I can't even get a handle on who this god character is?



So instead you should believe in something when you don't even know what it is?

And what does certainty have to do with anything? Lots of things you are certain about are probably wrong, and most of the stuff you are right about you aren't certain. Certainty is a sucker's bet. Everything is probabilistic to some extent. Some things are just more likely true than others.

If I think there is a 1% chance that God exists, does that mean I believe in God? Does it mean I don't believe in God?

[Samus]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So instead you should believe in something when you don't even know what it is? Nope, I stated quite clearly that one can't draw a conclusion either way (see my other post). I never advocated believing in something when you don't know what it is.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And what does certainty have to do with anything? Lots of things you are certain about are probably wrong, and most of the stuff you are right about you aren't certain. Certainty is a sucker's bet. Everything is probabilistic to some extent. Some things are just more likely true than others. What kind of question is that? Don't we believe things based on how certain we are that they are true? For those that know only of their flavor of religion, they are very certain of god's existence. Those that have seen otherwise might have a different conclusion. Certainty is based on evidence and experience.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
If I think there is a 1% chance that God exists, does that mean I believe in God? Does it mean I don't believe in God? I don't know, I'm not a bettin' man... :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi
No, it should be: "non-visible entities of indeterminate color."

There, that's all better now.


Sort of redundant..


Wouldn't " non-visible " cover it?

[Beleth]

What traits do IPUs have that can be objectively verified? In other words, how would you know an IPU when you encounter it?

The thing that differentiates God from IPUs is that there is no evidence either way that God exists, or doesn't exist, except for the fact that things do exist, and that our current frame of reference has no explanation for this.

God lives in our ignorance, yes. But He lives where we, quite literally, cannot look. IPUs do not live where we cannot look. Just because we can't see IPUs doesn't mean that we can't look at where they are.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dwb
Don't we believe things based on how certain we are that they are true? For those that know only of their flavor of religion, they are very certain of god's existence. Those that have seen otherwise might have a different conclusion. Certainty is based on evidence and experience.


There is a distinction in how you are using "certain" and "certainty." To be certain, as you initially used it, implies to believe something to be true to an essentially 100% probability. However, the concept of "certainty" itself is a continuum, and can range from 0 - 100.

It's a tough probability concept to wrap one's head around. Because existence is a binary state (God cannot only be 70% existent), we have to think of the probability of the answer being Exist vs NonExist. So we might talk about a 30% chance of it being true. However, if it is true, then it is 100% true. So how do we think about something that has a 30% chance of being 100% true (Copenhagen Interpretation anyone?).

The problem you are encountering is that the probability of something that cannot be defined is basically undefined. It is the conceptual equivalent of 0/0. Therefore, you cannot assign a likelyhood to it being true.

However, I would point out that there are an infinite number of things that are undefined, and god is just one of them. It is perfectly rational to treat the undefined god just as you treat the undefined fluhmax, which is probably as a non-entity.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Nucular
Well clearly the existence of God would also then require explanation.Yes, but it's an explanation nothing created could possibly come up with about its creator.

Kind of like clay pots trying to explain the existence of humans. What kind of clay humans were made of, what glazing they have on them, whether they were thrown on a wheel or not, etc.

For instance. I doubt very much that God is bound by, or subject to, the phenomenon we call "time." If you accept that, then the question "where did God come from?" becomes nonsensical in the same sense that "how hot is the kiln that humans are made in?" is nonsensical.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Beleth
Yes, but it's an explanation nothing created could possibly come up with about its creator.

Kind of like clay pots trying to explain the existence of humans. What kind of clay humans were made of, what glazing they have on them, whether they were thrown on a wheel or not, etc.

HAL could explain the existence of humans. Your principle is defeated.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
HAL could explain the existence of humans. Your principle is defeated. You mean HAL, the ficticious computer in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

HAL was not a creation; he was only an extension of Arthur C. Clarke's own mental facilities. Since Mr. Clarke could explain the existence of humans, so could HAL.

My principle stands. There is an unbreachable gulf between creator and created, no matter who is the creator and who is the created.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Beleth
My principle stands. There is an unbreachable gulf between creator and created, no matter who is the creator and who is the created. did you just say...

CREATOR makes/controls YOU makes/controls CLAY POTS?

'cause it sure sounded like that... :)

(BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just razzin' you)

[Beleth]

Good heavens no!

"Make" and "control" are two ENTIRELY different things.


(But I appreciate a good razz, even when it's at my expense.)

[jimlintott]

Instead of IPUs I've always used thirty foot tall fire breathing clowns living in Antarctica that are very good at hiding. I use them in the context of demonstrating that outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. Usually by suggesting that if I said such a thing existed then you would certainly want some proof. Well, I want some proof of the existence of dieties, otherwise it is just another, unsubstantiated, outragous claim.

[Samus]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
It's a tough probability concept to wrap one's head around. Because existence is a binary state (God cannot only be 70% existent), we have to think of the probability of the answer being Exist vs NonExist. So we might talk about a 30% chance of it being true. However, if it is true, then it is 100% true. So how do we think about something that has a 30% chance of being 100% true (Copenhagen Interpretation anyone?). Yes and no. If the statement is "god exists, in some form or another" ...you can have varying degrees of certainty about that statement. I can be reasonably certain god exists, but still have my doubts. 100% certainty = true, the "100%" in front of true is superfluous, and will only muddy the water.

That said, there have been times in the past where people have proclaimed something to be true, with 100% certainty, then had it be wrong (Earth as center of the universe, anyone?) So, your earlier statement holds: just because I'm certain, doesn't mean I'm right.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The problem you are encountering is that the probability of something that cannot be defined is basically undefined. It is the conceptual equivalent of 0/0. Therefore, you cannot assign a likelyhood [sic] to it being true. I can't help but think we're agreeing, yet we don't see that we're agreeing. If I say "you cannot prove or disprove if you can't define the concept" (as I did earlier), is that the same thing you just said here?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Instead of IPUs I've always used thirty foot tall fire breathing clowns living in Antarctica that are very good at hiding.Perhaps we should start using "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction"!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dwb
I can't help but think we're agreeing, yet we don't see that we're agreeing. If I say "you cannot prove or disprove if you can't define the concept" (as I did earlier), is that the same thing you just said here?

No, we are in agreement on that. I was just trying to clear up the confusion introduced by the imposition of "certainty." As we see, it is extremely conflated, and tends to confuse the discussion.

But we do agree on the main point: the probability of the existence of something that is not defined is undefined.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Beleth
For instance. I doubt very much that God is bound by, or subject to, the phenomenon we call "time." If you accept that, then the question "where did God come from?" becomes nonsensical in the same sense that "how hot is the kiln that humans are made in?" is nonsensical. Presumably then that also becomes true for the universe. If the universe is not bound by, or subject to, what we perceive as time - and current theories have 'time' becoming a Very Fuzzy Concept Indeed, especially primordially - then by your logic the question "where did the universe come from?" is equally nonsensical.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Nucular
Presumably then that also becomes true for the universe.But from what we know, the universe is indeed subject to time. I guess I don't see your point. Maybe it's because I don't know much about the current theories of time, beyond having read "A Brief History of Time" about seven years ago.

[Nucular]

I'm not too clued up either, but I think that to see time as something independent, which the universe must be subject to, is to misunderstand the nature of time.

The kind of fuzziness I meant is like, for example, the Planck interval. This is the shortest period of time that has any meaning - 10**-43 seconds - and so can be regarded as the 'quantum' of time. Because no smaller time has any meaning, I'm reliably informed by popular science books, at the moment the universe was created, it was already 10**-43 seconds old.

Also, in quantum mechanics, the arrow of time is meaningless, and past and future are interchangable. Oh, how very zen.

What would time be to hyperspace? How can you describe strings or branes temporally? I have no idea whether you can or not, but as a layman I suspect it would be difficult, or irrelevant.

So, the point being, if the universe isn't subject to time in the way we understand it, like God wouldn't be, then to say "where did it come from?" or worse, "what was there before?" becomes meaningless. And God vanishes in a puff of confused pidgin-physics ;)

BUT to return to your original point, questions like "where did the universe come from?", "where did God come from?", "what was there before?" and so on go weird if we look at the nature of time; but the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is kind of beyond time, and so can be asked. But that means that God is no kind of answer, because the same question can equally well be applied to Him.

[metacristi]

billydkid

So, I think we need some new completely ineffable counter entity instead of IPU's. It is IPU's very particularness that makes them vulnerable just as it's "god's" ineffability that makes him such a daunting foe.

You forgot an essential aspect.There must also exist 'objective',intersubjective,evidence for which your 'ineffable entity' should be on equal foot with the scientific approaches as an explanation.For example God (defined as the creator of the universe) is on equal foot with naturalist,scientific,approaches when dealing with ontological aspects:in the question of how the universe appeared we cannot make the difference between them.That in in spite of the many claims made,especially by the atheists.Indeed Occam's Razor or the principle of parsimony IS NOT A PROOF (or a sufficient reason) to consider that the more complex explanation is 'inferior' or false...If you do not believe try a simple search on the web...

[Nucular]

Originally posted by metacristi
billydkid



You forgot an essential aspect.There must also exist 'objective',intersubjective,evidence for which your 'ineffable entity' should be on equal foot with the scientific approaches as an explanation.For example God (defined as the creator of the universe) is on equal foot with naturalist,scientific,approaches when dealing with ontological aspects:in the question of how the universe appeared we cannot make the difference between them.That in in spite of the many claims made,especially by the atheists.Indeed Occam's Razor or the principle of parsimony IS NOT A PROOF (or a sufficient reason) to consider that the more complex explanation is 'inferior' or false...If you do not believe try a simple search on the web... How can saying "God did it" or "God made it" be just as valid as scientific approaches when discussing ontological problems?

Well, I say the IPUs made it. There, equal footing.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Nucular
How can saying "God did it" or "God made it" be just as valid as scientific approaches when discussing ontological problems?Think about what being "equally valid" means. It doesn't necessarily mean that "God did it" is a valid response; it could mean that scientific approaches are invalid too.

Well, I say the IPUs made it. There, equal footing. Exactly. Just as invalid as the scientific approach.

[metacristi]

How can saying "God did it" or "God made it" be just as valid as scientific approaches when discussing ontological problems?

Are you sure I've said God did it?I don't remember to have said that...I only made the observation that at least now we cannot make the difference between them.If you know a way to do that please present us all...


Well, I say the IPUs made it. There, equal footing.

From the definition of IPU does not follow that IPU can create the universe.If you attach the atribute 'creator of the universe' then there is equal footing indeed only that IPU this time is merely another label for God.I do not think that's what you want to obtain.Remember I only defined God as the creator of the universe since I do not know the real attributes of God but it is presupposed that it is a conscious being capable of logical thinking.I should have said a 'personal God'.If you attach other attributes or not is not important anyway intelligence and the capacity to think logically must be among them also...in order to build an ordered universe.
Besides you say that 'IPU made it' or this is a positive claim which must be sustained with objective arguments...

[Nucular]

Originally posted by metacristi


Are you sure I've said God did it?I don't remember to have said that...I only made the observation that at least now we cannot make the difference between them.If you know a way to do that please present us all...No, I was summing up the theistic explanation of the existence of the universe by saying that, not implying that you had claimed it.

I think the theistic and secular scientific approaches to this question are not of equal validity, because one (science) studies the nature of the universe to try to work out how it might have 'happened', and the other (theism) gives non-evidence-based simplistic pseudo-explanations instead.From the definition of IPU does not follow that IPU can create the universe.If you attach the atribute 'creator of the universe' then there is equal footing indeed only that IPU this time is merely another label for God.I do not think that's what you want to obtain.Remember I only defined God as the creator of the universe since I do not know the real attributes of God but it is presupposed that it is a conscious being capable of logical thinking.If you attach other attributes or not is not important anyway intelligence and the capacity to think logically must be among them also...in order to build an ordered universe. There is nothing in our current definition of IPUs which precludes their being both intelligent and powerful.

Why would they have to be intelligent though? I believe the IPUs simply made lots and lots of weird things, randomly, over a very long period of time. One of those things happened, by chance, to find some kind of order; improbable, but given the amount and size of the weird things the IPUs made, it was bound to happen. We live in it.

If you define God as the creator, with no other comment, then obviously if I say the IPUs are actually the creator, then I'm saying they come under your definition of God. So? You just haven't defined God well enough.Besides you say that 'IPU made it' or this is a positive claim which must be sustained with objective arguments... I'm pointing out by making this claim that IPUs do potentially have the same explanatory power as God. Though, I think, both have less than science.

[metacristi]

think the theistic and secular scientific approaches to this question are not of equal validity, because one (science) studies the nature of the universe to try to work out how it might have 'happened', and the other (theism) gives non-evidence-based simplistic pseudo-explanations instead.


Of course you are aware that this is only a belief there is nothing that really can count as a sufficient argument beyond reasonable doubt...Anyway you should make the difference between dogma and belief they are not one and the same.


There is nothing in our current definition of IPUs which precludes their being both intelligent and powerful.


You should give first an enough clear definition of IPU.I gave you mines:a personal God,creator of the universe.From what you say I could derive the conclusion that IPU have all attributes imaginable also,even contradictory ones.In this case it is not even a valid concept.


I'm pointing out by making this claim that IPUs do potentially have the same explanatory power as God. Though, I think, both have less than science.

IPU as you defined is not even a noncoherent concept.Besides there is no logical or experimental objective data which to point out that naturalism is true or that science will ever be able to explain how universe appeared.In fact we cannot make now the difference between the personal 'God hypothesis' and naturalism.The actual success of science at usual levels does not make it automatically more succesfull at ultimate questions,your stance is a simple belief without solid reason in its favor.

[Fade]

Metacristi:

I sent you a PM but apparently you ignored it.

Do you know that your type of signature is widely considered rude on many forums? It is literally longer than most of the posts you make. It's also very loud. Perhaps slimming it down to something simple would be good?

[metacristi]

Is it really so long?I don't think so.Besides I have enough logical arguments for my choice...it would take me days to explain to every new atheist,especially the 'fundametalists',again and again the same simple things...

[Fade]

Your signature consists of 324 words, 2,270 spaces, and 32 words.

Also, if your arguments were logical, you wouldn't encounter grief with them would you?

[Nucular]

Of course you are aware that this is only a belief there is nothing that really can count as a sufficient argument beyond reasonable doubt I'm not saying science has a sufficient argument beyond reasonable doubt, I'm saying it's not in principle impossible for science to shed light on the origins of the universe in an empirical way, whereas it is in principle impossible for those seeking to explain by way of a Creator, as no evidence is sought to back up the point: the position is created on the basis of our relative lack of it.a personal God,creator of the universe. How is that a "clear definition?" How is that a clearer definition than mine regarding IPUs?From what you say I could derive the conclusion that IPU have all attributes imaginable also,even contradictory ones.In this case it is not even a valid concept. Ditto your definition of God.Besides there is no logical or experimental objective data which to point out that naturalism is true or that science will ever be able to explain how universe appeared. We can say that naturalism is true so long as we can explain and understand phenomena without introducing non-naturalistic concepts and entities. I can't see this ending at the beginning of the universe. The mechanisms are there to try to understand how something can blink into existence, whether our universe actually came from something else (hyperspace, another universe, etc.), whether the laws of physics might have been pre-existent and therefore may help us understand the origins of the universe, whether the universe did indeed have a beginning, etc. Science may be able to comment validly on the origin of the universe.

On an unrelated point - I have to agree with Fade. I find the length of your signature distracting. Why don't you start a single thread where you put all that stuff in it, and just have as a signature "To know where I'm coming from, go here"?

[metacristi]

Fade

Your signature consists of 324 words, 2,270 spaces, and 32 words.

So what?By the way is this the most important thing you have to do?

Also, if your arguments were logical, you wouldn't encounter grief with them would you?

My question is: Did you really understand them?It seems to me that you disagree but please tell me what makes you believe they are not valid?What makes you believe that atheists (not all of them,anyway a vast majority) are capable to understand them?From all I've seen this is one of the most fundamentalist sites I've seen so far where logic is scarcely the base of arguments...I've explained very well my reasons so I have nothing to add.If you don't like it you are free to disable the signature feature or,more convenient,put me on your ignore list.I would be glad to never hear from you again.

[metacristi]

Nucular

I'm not saying science has a sufficient argument beyond reasonable doubt, I'm saying it's not in principle impossible for science to shed light on the origins of the universe in an empirical way, whereas it is in principle impossible for those seeking to explain by way of a Creator, as no evidence is sought to back up the point: the position is created on the basis of our relative lack of it.

I also believe that science can 'shed a light' on how the Universe appeared,only that science could very well to find that a personal God created the universe.You presuppose somehow that naturalism will 'work' forever' and that science cannot find God.Not a valid inference.


How is that a "clear definition?" How is that a clearer definition than mine regarding IPUs?

If you cannot even recognize some very well establidhed definitions there is nothing to discuss further...
Try www.dictionary.com:

personal="Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God."

Your definition of IPU is practically inexistent being as I've already proved to you internally noncoherent.

We can say that naturalism is true so long as we can explain and understand phenomena without introducing non-naturalistic concepts and entities. I can't see this ending at the beginning of the universe. The mechanisms are there to try to understand how something can blink into existence, whether our universe actually came from something else (hyperspace, another universe, etc.), whether the laws of physics might have been pre-existent and therefore may help us understand the origins of the universe, whether the universe did indeed have a beginning, etc. Science may be able to comment validly on the origin of the universe.


This is what I've observed very often at many atheists,they are not able to make the difference between a mere conjecture and a scientific truth,between scientific data and their own beliefs and ultimately that even if the 'fallible scientific truth' does not imply certitudes.They always try to 'cover' (probable unconsciously) their position in scientific 'clothes' as if that is what science itself say.Sorry but this can count only as a real dogma.Indeed no one can claim that naturalism is 'fallible scientific truth',it is a mere conjecture.Even if I conceded that it is a 'fallible scientific truth' there is no logical need to believe in them since we lack the reason beyond all reasonable doubt which to compel us to believe.Anyway it is not the case,no unbiased scientist would claim that now in the light of current evidence...


No matter how you define your IPU coherently as much as you attach the label 'creator of the universe' it becomes only your vision of god.From what I understand it is semiconscious,anyway way inferior to human consciousness,close to being a zombie.
Well using the argument from analogy,based on the observed evidence,it can be shown that a strictly personal belief in my model of God is more coherent with the observed reality and it is preferable if you do not have additionally 'subjective evidence'.But probably you have 'subjective evidence',you are fully entitled to believe in IPU as much as you do not make positive claims.Still there is no necessity that I and other people should believe in your concept of god.Sure 'objectively' your concept is not 'inferior' to my concept,however it's degree of coherence with the observed reality is inferior,a very important aspect when choosing to believe/disbelieve in a certain concept of god.

Now if you define IPU as being 'the personal creator of the universe' this is only a new definiton of God with some extra attributes assigned.The extra luggage it carries does not make it 'inferior' objectively but is a drawback when choosing,in a subjective way,in what type of personal God to believe.Indeed it is more rational to add as few attributes as possible if you are not sure of them.Anyway the extra attributes of IPU (a horn,four leags) and so on are way less coherent and less useful (with respect to the existing evidence) than the attributes of the Christian God for example.Only if you would have subjective evidence that IPU (personal creator of the Universe) do exist are you entitled to maintain them,still keeping your belief strictly personal.Of course this does not mean that I and the others should believe in your type of God...


As a conclusion the 'invisible friend' argument is the weakest argument I've seen from atheists,on the brink of ridiculous.Indeed it 'works' only and only when a positive claim is made by theists:

'Why don't you believe in God?.We have scientific 'proof' and so on...you are compelled to believe' at which an answer like:'Why don't you believe in my little little invisible leprichaun that makes me coffee every morning' is a strong argument indeed.Still this does not make the belief irrational and moreover when such positive claims are not made this argument fails entirely its intended target...