Smart Kid

[volatile]

You are joking aren't you?

Well, I thought you were! :) But clearly you're not. I'm now deadly serious... submit your proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist.




There is no evidence against god (the ever existing being who created everything else).So you're picking a deist God? And your suggestion that he doesn't exist is that there's no proof against it? There's also no proof against Russell's Invisible Teapot, if you're playing by those criteria...

Your argument remains that it's more plausible to remain agnostic over God than over Santa because the God character is more powerful. As far as I can tell, the more extensive a character's powers, the more plausible it is, in your opinion - this is clearly absurd.

God is different from the other characters because he has not been disproven whereas these other characters have been.Santa Claus has not been 'disproven'. There is strong evidence against his existence, hence I don't believe in him. The same is true of God, unless you have some inarguable way of disproving Santa.

(Here's a hint - you can't conclusively prove a negative (see: Karl Popper and his thoughts on falsifiability).)

[cyborg]

You'll have to explain to me how the nature of subatomic particles are affected by humans using "vibrating strings" as abstractions to explain them.
If you're saying something else, I don't get it.

There should be a not in there as in the universe doesn't give a crap how we choose to describe it.

Either this is true or it is not.

That cannot be determined.

[rcronk]

But Santa DOES exist - he's your parents! The evidence against him (sleigh going light speed, living at the north pole, etc.) only discredits the incorrect assumptions about his attributes - he still exists despite those incorrect attributes. Evidence for his existence includes presents appearing under the tree, etc. As children, people lied to us about him and so we have an incorrect picture of who he really is - but he does exist in the form of our parents. We find that out later as our understanding increases. We don't say that our parents don't exist because they are Santa but he has a sleigh that goes light speed and so therefore my parents can't exist - we say that we had misconceptions about who he is.

The same goes for god. We have evidence for and against him as we do for Santa. Evidence supporting god's existence include not only the fingers with which I'm typing this message but every one of us and all living things in existence. Some of this existence could also be seen as supporting abiogenesis/evolution but it can also support an intelligent creator.

I don't understand why some people's lies or misconceptions about god cause people to throw out the entire god theory completely rather than just the parts that are wrong. The abiogenesis that evolution relies upon (since only "living" things can evolve) hasn't been directly proven any more than the existence of god has been directly proven so why do people throw out the god theory completely?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Santa DOES exist - he's your parents!

No. By your thinking, King Lear exists, and of course he is merely a fictional character.

I know it's cutesy to say that Santa exists because the parents do the things attributed to Santa, nevertheless, Santa Clause does not exist.

[rcronk]

JoeTheJuggler - You've completely missed the point. Read the whole post again.

[Tanstaafl]

...snip... I don't understand why some people's lies or misconceptions about god cause people to throw out the entire god theory completely rather than just the parts that are wrong. The abiogenesis that evolution relies upon (since only "living" things can evolve) hasn't been directly proven any more than the existence of god has been directly proven so why do people throw out the god theory completely?


Unfortunately, this approach tends to lead to worshipping at Our Lady of the Moving Goalposts.

You can always keep changing the definition of god whenever some previously claimed attribute is disproven. We can (and probably will) continue the exercise until most people are reduced to a deist god, where not much of anything is claimed at all. Some of us see the pattern emerging though, and are impatient to skip some intermediate steps.

ETA: By the way, evolution does not rely on any particular concept of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis clearly happened, since at one point there was no life, and now there is life. But evolution is completely compatible with the idea that god created the first life. It only describes how the current diversity of life came about from those early life forms.

[rcronk]

Good points - I'm glad you got the points I was trying to make also. The same moving goalposts exist in science as we continue to learn more and discover thing using the scientific method. I think that if god does exist, (and I believe he does) then science and theism will end up reconciled eventually. Truth is truth independent of any theory. God is said to have always existed - apparently that's beyond our current understanding, but if it is true, then abiogenesis didn't have to happen.

Again, your points are well taken.

[Jon.]

Good points - I'm glad you got the points I was trying to make also. The same moving goalposts exist in science as we continue to learn more and discover thing using the scientific method.

Don't you see the difference here, though? Science is all about changing what we know - religion is about the unchangeability of what we "know". Therefore, the "goalposts" in science are supposed to move - nobody today is expected to have to re-prove that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, or that species come about via evolution actuated by natural selection. We try to discover new stuff that we didn't know about before. In religion, though, someone trying to inject new stuff into the body of knowledge is called a heretic and attacked as violently as the law of the time and place will allow (as a Mormon, you should know something about that).

I should also point out that "moving the goalposts" is usually a criticism of your argument - saying that you are changing your position in response to arguments made by the other side rather than addressing or refuting those arguments.

I think that if god does exist, (and I believe he does) then science and theism will end up reconciled eventually. Truth is truth independent of any theory. God is said to have always existed - apparently that's beyond our current understanding, but if it is true, then abiogenesis didn't have to happen.

Perhaps not, but "atheogenesis" (to coin a term) did: God had to come from somewhere. If he didn't have to come from somewhere, then why did the universe? You're just pushing the question off by a level or two.

Actually, even with God in the picture, "abiogenesis" (ie. life from non-life) did happen, according to the Bible: God breathed life into his clay man, and created the animals and plants, presumably out of nothing.

[RandFan]

The same goes for god. We have evidence for and against him...No we don't. There is no evidence for god. If you chose to assign meaning that is not warranted then that is your prerogative but there is no evidence for god.

[BillyJoe]

So you're saying that the default position should be that it DOES exist?


No. Where have I stated that. :confused:
I simply stated that, a couple of thousand years ago, someone (Democritus) came up with the idea of atoms. There was no evidence for atoms and, in fact, the idea was dropped for two thousand years. Did the lack of evidence for atoms mean that they did not exist. Obviously not.

What I'm saying is that the lack of evidence for a thing doesn't mean that thing does not exist (in response to PT saying "...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!")
And I've repeated it three times now.

There's a reason that falsifiable claims are those preferred by scientists. Do you need help in figuring it out?


No.
But how is this relevant to the question of whether evidence is necessary in order for something to exist.
There is no evidence for "vibrating strings". Are we therefore entitled to say "vibrating strings" do not exist?

Provide evidence that "atoms" were hypothesized in the same way as we have theories of atoms today.


Show me where I stated that they were. :confused:
I simply stated that about two thousand years ago someone (Democritus) came up with the idea of atoms. There was no evidence for atoms and, in fact, the idea was dropped for about two thousand years. Did the lack of evidence for atoms mean that they do not exist? Obviously not.

Demonstrate the "irrefutable evidence" that Santa doesn't exist, in a way that can't be applied to God.


Okay, a bit of hyperbole.
But all I need to demonstrate is that the god question is not analogous to the santa question.

Santa was never intended as anything other than an amusing story for children. Except for children under about the age of five, no one has ever seriously believed that santa exists. Santa does not play any serious role in the mental life of any person past age five. Santa is not a possible explanation for anything of any consequence. No one seriously wants to disprove santa. Santa was only ever intended as pure fantasy, frivolity, and entertainment.

God, on the other hand, arose out of a serious need to explain some of the most important things in our universe. It is a serious consideration for an enormous number of highly intelligent adults on our planet. God could be the ever existing being who created everything else in existence. God, in a sense, is no more mysterious than the fact of quantum entanglement, the fact of backwards in time causation in quantum interactions, the fact of the holistic interconnectivity of all the quantum "particles" in the universe, or the unfathomable reason why there is something rather than nothing.

In brief, god is concerned with the serious questions of our existence, santa with pure frivolity, fantasy, and entertainment. Which leads me back to my original point that you cannot dismiss god as easily as you can dismiss santa.

I'll go back to the Chinese Teapot. If your default position is that the teapot exists, then you can spent billions trying to look for it, floating out there in space, for something that MUST be there, but that there is no reason to believe.


I'm not sure why you want to continually attribute statements to me that I have not made. :confused:
I'm not sure why you want to add to the list of characters either, but I'll go with it: santa, the tooth faerie, the easter bunny, and....the chinese teapot!

[BillyJoe]

So you're picking a deist God?


;)

And your suggestion that he doesn't exist is that there's no proof against it? There's also no proof against Russell's Invisible Teapot, if you're playing by those criteria...


I think you meant: "And your suggestion that he DOES exist is that there's no proof against it?"
The answer is no, that is not my suggestion.
For the fourth time what I am saying is that the lack of evidence for god doesn't mean that god does not exist.

Your argument remains that it's more plausible to remain agnostic over God than over Santa because the God character is more powerful. As far as I can tell, the more extensive a character's powers, the more plausible it is, in your opinion - this is clearly absurd.


And I am not talking about agnosticism either.
It's purely a question of logic: lack of evidence does not equal does not exist.
I suppose I am saying, in a sense, that the idea of god is more powerful than the idea of santa (for reasons enumerated above).
I don't think that opinion is absurd.

Santa Claus has not been 'disproven'. There is strong evidence against his existence, hence I don't believe in him. The same is true of God, unless you have some inarguable way of disproving Santa.


Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence. The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.
Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.

[BillyJoe]

There should be a not in there as in the universe doesn't give a crap how we choose to describe it.

Ah, you meant "Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena do not have an affect on the nature of the phenomena."
Why are you arguing with me then. You agree with me. :)

That cannot be determined.


Again you agree with me. :)
Because there is no evidence for "vibrating strings", it cannot be determined whether or not "vibrating strings" exist. In other words, the lack of evidence for them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[cyborg]

In other words, the lack of evidence for them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.

[RandFan]

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.:)

And no one is praying to tiny little strings hopping to find their lost puppy.

[BillyJoe]

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.

:rolleyes:

You are not saying anything that matters to anything.

Of course the "vibrating strings" are abstractions. As are "atoms". But they are abstractions of some underlying reality (or not, whichever it turns out to be) that we cannot directly observe.

If you like you can expand "vibrating strings" to "the underlying reality of which vibrating strings are an abstraction" if you wish.
I'll stick with "vibrating strings" and refer you back here if necessary. ;)

It really makes no difference to the argument.

[BillyJoe]

:)

And no one is praying to tiny little strings hopping to find their lost puppy.


Hopping? :D
And no one is praying to a deist god either. ;)

[RandFan]

Hopping? :D I should have said rabbit instead of puppy...

And no one is praying to a deist god either. ;)Deism is cool by me.

[Lonewulf]

Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence. The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.
Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.

Your argument fails.

You did not disprove that Santa exists. You merely wrote it off as silly. Let's see, there's a term for that, isn't there?

Either way, you have yet to disprove it. As such, Santa and God are still equal. Sorry.

[BillyJoe]

I'm glad to see you take the question of the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie seriously. :D

I'm sure there's a term for that too. ;)

[BillyJoe]

Deism is cool by me.


:)


How about you, Lonewulf?
Seeing as you take santa claus, the tooth faerie, and the easter bunny seriously...

[Lonewulf]

I'm glad to see you take the question of the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie seriously. :D

Another non-argument.

There were people that didn't take the idea of the atom existing seriously, two millenium ago. Does that mean that the atom doesn't exist?

Your own argument fails against you, if it does.

I'm sure there's a term for that too. ;)

That's called, "Willing to prove a point".

I consider the belief of God to be about as logical and serious as Santa, and if you cannot actively disprove Santa Clause, then he is just as logical as God. You cannot see or disprove either.

How about you, Lonewulf?

How about me what? I did not know that arguments were based on voting.

Please disprove that Santa exists that cannot also be applied to God. If you refuse, then it will be rather telling...

Seeing as you take santa claus, the tooth faerie, and the easter bunny seriously...

Your claim, not mine. At least come up with some more interesting or inventive strawman, would you? The ones you're using make you look really foolish... anyways...

I take the argument that Santa has just as much logic behind it as God seriously. I stand behind that argument, unless you can thoroughly disprove it. So far, you have been as weak and impotent in such efforts as a ninety year old that lost his viagra is in proving the Kama Sutra.

[wolfgirl]

Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence.Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?

Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.

There.

[wolfgirl]

The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true. Shall we decide which god is actually the real one based on which one has the most followers? After all, if "an enormous number of people" believe in one certain god, then that one must be real, right? Of course, an enormous number will also believe in the second-most-popular one, too, but I guess it's whichever one has the enormous-est number...

[wolfgirl]

Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.And as many of us have said, there is no evidence against Santa's existence. If you think there is please provide it. "Nobody's ever seen him" doesn't count. "He is illogical" doesn't count. "We've been to the North Pole, and he's not there" doesn't count.

Our saying there is no evidence against Santa's existence, to clear this up once and for all, does not imply that we take the possibility of his existence seriously. It just means that we cannot, nor can anyone, actually prove that he doesn't exist. In the same way, we cannot, nor can anyone, actually prove that gods don't exist. We can, however, choose to believe, based on what we know, in Santa and in gods, or not to believe in them.

My choice, as I believe I've made abundantly clear, is not to believe in either, for basically the same reasons. No compelling evidence for such a belief.

[wolfgirl]

God, on the other hand, arose out of a serious need to explain some of the most important things in our universe.!Bingo! This hits the nail on the head! I'm glad you've finally grasped it!

As you said, God arose out of the need to explain...

Primitive humans needed some way to explain those things which they could not possibly be expected to understand in their time. They therefore created a god hypothesis to explain those things. That hypothesis has been proven to be the incorrect explanation for a great many things over the millenia. Yet many of us still cling to it to explain those things that we have yet to explain scientifically.

[Lonewulf]

Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?

Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.

There.

Y'know, Billy Joe considers himself a Philosopher, but I have to say: Socrates he ain't.

Anybody that took Philosophy 101 would have seen that refutation come a mile away. :rolleyes:

Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true.

And this refutation, for that matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacy. Though he wasn't using the majority of believers as "proof", but instead to state that, because a majority of people believe in something, it must be taken more seriously than Santa Clause.

Though if I follow that ridiculous line of logic, many new scientific discoveries could be disregarded as silly because "the majority of people disregard them as silly". The majority finding something silly or taking something seriously has no bearing at all on the logic or illogic of a concept.

If the majority of people in a state consider evolution to be bull and silly, then evolution = silly. Same BillyJoe logic.

Anyways, BillyJoe obviously can't disprove Santa Clause. Rather telling to everyone but him...

[BillyJoe]

There were people that didn't take the idea of the atom existing seriously, two millenium ago. Does that mean that the atom doesn't exist?
Your own argument fails against you, if it does.


This argument falls against you actually...

You're saying that the question of whether or not the atom exists is analagous to the question of whether or not santa claus exists???
Do you really think that santa claus will be proven one day to exist???
The plain fact is that santa was never meant to be taken seriously by anyone but, when Democritus proposed the existence of the atom he was saying something serious. He didn't say it to amuse people with fairytales he never intended to be true.


I consider the belief of God to be about as logical and serious as Santa...


Let's hear that again: You consider belief in god to be as serious as the belief in santa. Please read that again. Now tell me: who, outside of pre-schoolers, takes the belief in santa seriously. Now compare you answer the question of who takes the belief in god seriously.


...and if you cannot actively disprove Santa Clause, then he is just as logical as God. You cannot see or disprove either.


Nobody outside yourself seems to take the belief in santa seriously, so I will leave that question for you to answer at your leisure and for your own amusement.
My aim here is not to disprove santa, but to show you the reason why god cannot be dismissed as easily as santa, that reason being that santa was never meant to be taken seriously and has never ever been taken seriously by anyone over the age of five, that being the age group for whom this little tale was thought up, by those over five, solely as a form of amusement and fantasy.

How about me what? I did not know that arguments were based on voting.


Seems the only way you can think of to win this argument is by changing what I am saying into something you think you can refute.
I am saying that nobody takes santa seriously, whereas billions of people take god seriously, which is part of the reason I am giving that you cannot dismiss god as easily as santa. I am not, repeat not, talking about a popularity contest.

Please disprove that Santa exists that cannot also be applied to God. If you refuse, then it will be rather telling...



It's fine to put your own argument. It is not fine to tell me what argument I must use and, at the same time, ignore the argument I am actually making.


Your claim, not mine [about taking santa seriously]. At least come up with some more interesting or inventive strawman, would you? The ones you're using make you look really foolish... anyways...


The problem is you ignore the argument I am using - that nobody over five takes santa seriously, that santa was never meant to be taken seriously, that santa was never meant to answer any serious questions of existence. Billlions of people take god seriously as an answer to serious questions which have never, and perhaps will never, be answered. Therefore god cannot be dismissed as easily as santa. You say he can, so I say to you that you must show me why the concept of santa must be taken seriously. Seems fair to me. Especially since you seem to be avoiding answering that question despite it having been put several times.

I take the argument that Santa has just as much logic behind it as God seriously. I stand behind that argument, unless you can thoroughly disprove it. So far, you have been as weak and impotent in such efforts as a ninety year old that lost his viagra is in proving the Kama Sutra.


Seriously? :D

[BillyJoe]

Y'know, Billy Joe considers himself a Philosopher, but I have to say: Socrates he ain't..


That title is not of my choosing. It has ben bestowed upon me by the JREF, as you well know.

Anybody that took Philosophy 101 would have seen that refutation come a mile away. :rolleyes:


That refutation is a very good one but it does not address my argument, but another argument that I have clearly not made. It is therefore not a legitimate argument in this case.

Argument by popularity is a fallacy. Though he wasn't using the majority of believers as "proof", but instead to state that, because a majority of people believe in something, it must be taken more seriously than Santa Clause.


So why have you been trying to make out that I have?
But, okay, now you are beginning to see the argument at least. :)
Now you just need to see that this is true. And obviously true. Still it is only part of the argument. The other has to do with the serious and, as yet unresolved, questions that god addresses.


Though if I follow that ridiculous line of logic, many new scientific discoveries could be disregarded as silly because "the majority of people disregard them as silly". The majority finding something silly or taking something seriously has no bearing at all on the logic or illogic of a concept...


And when no one takes it seriously and no one ever meant it to be taken seriously and when it doesn't address any serious questions...
You don't think that makes a difference?

[Lonewulf]

This argument falls against you actually...

Ah, silly young fool...

You're saying that the question of whether or not the atom exists is analagous to the question of whether or not santa claus exists???

No. I see you have missed the point, but I am not surprised.

Do you really think that santa claus will be proven one day to exist???

No. Point missed.

The plain fact is that santa was never meant to be taken seriously by anyone...

So? That does not necessarily mean that he doesn't exist.

...but, when Democritus proposed the existence of the atom he was saying something serious. He didn't say it to amuse people with fairytales he never intended to be true.

Just like the borderline crackpot spouts out how the Illuminati is out to get him, he isn't saying it to amuse people. Yet, it amuses people.

Let's hear that again: You consider belief in god to be as serious as the belief in santa.

I'm saying that santa, like god, is unprovable, and that both are analogous in that sense, yes.

Please read that again. Now tell me: who, outside of pre-schoolers, takes the belief in santa seriously. Now compare you answer the question of who takes the belief in god seriously.

Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy.

Try again, pseudo-philosopher.

Nobody outside yourself seems to take the belief in santa seriously, so I will leave that question for you to answer at your leisure and for your own amusement.

So, santa is unprovable, and he has not been disproven, then. Even though you refuse to retract your statement that Santa has been disproven, that's okay, I'll forgive you. We all make mistakes, you including. Anyhow...

Case closed.

The rest of your post can safely be ignored.

You have pretty much proven my point, even though you refuse to do so willingly. No matter, my work here is done.

[BillyJoe]

Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?
Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.


The word is "serious". See reply to LW

Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true. Shall we decide which god is actually the real one based on which one has the most followers? After all, if "an enormous number of people" believe in one certain god, then that one must be real, right? Of course, an enormous number will also believe in the second-most-popular one, too, but I guess it's whichever one has the enormous-est number...


You have a good refutation against an argument I clearly have not made.
See reply to LW.

And as many of us have said, there is no evidence against Santa's existence. If you think there is please provide it. "Nobody's ever seen him" doesn't count. "He is illogical" doesn't count. "We've been to the North Pole, and he's not there" doesn't count.


This is not my argument.
And, again, the operative word is "serious" (see reply to LW).

Our saying there is no evidence against Santa's existence, to clear this up once and for all, does not imply that we take the possibility of his existence seriously.


I am glad to hear it, because that adds to my statement that no one (over five) takes santa seriously. Do you also agree that santa was never meant to be taken seriously or to be taken as a serious answer to the serious questions of our existence?
Compare your answers for god.

We can, however, choose to believe, based on what we know, in Santa and in gods, or not to believe in them.


Do you seriously think anyone (over five) would choose to believe in santa??? On the other hand billions of people do choose to believe in god for the most serious of reasons.

My choice, as I believe I've made abundantly clear, is not to believe in either, for basically the same reasons. No compelling evidence for such a belief.


But that is looking at only one dimension of the comparison between god and santa. Don't you see that there are other reasons why god cannot be as easily dismissed as santa?

Primitive humans needed some way to explain those things which they could not possibly be expected to understand in their time. They therefore created a god hypothesis to explain those things. That hypothesis has been proven to be the incorrect explanation for a great many things over the millenia. Yet many of us still cling to it to explain those things that we have yet to explain scientifically.


There is still the deistic god which is unaccounted for by this argument.
But, already, you are starting to see that the god question is different form the santa question. Could what you have said above about god be applied to santa? Of course not...because no one takes santa seriously!

[Lonewulf]

There is still the deistic god which is unaccounted for by this argument.
But, already, you are starting to see that the god question is different form the santa question. Could what you have said above about god be applied to santa? Of course not...because no one takes santa seriously!

And I don't take the deistic God seriously. Nor have I ever seen any reason to.

A God that supposedly created the universe but doesn't interfere? Might as well not even exist. And without evidence for his existance, that's even more true.

God was made by the same minds that made up Santa Clause, and has just as much evidence for him.

However, YOU stated that Santa Clause could be disproven. Which you have failed to do so, continuously.

Are you willing to retract your statement now, or do you wish to continue to be a pseudo-philosopher?

[BillyJoe]

Ah, silly young fool...

Thank you. :)

No. I see you have missed the point, but I am not surprised.

My point was that you would have to answer no to my question.
If you say I have missed your point you will have to identify it otherwise I won't believe you had one.

No. Point missed.

If you say I have missed your point you will have to identify it otherwise I won't believe you had one.

So? That does not necessarily mean that he [santa] doesn't exist.

No one takes the question of santa's existence seriously.

Just like the borderline crackpot spouts out how the Illuminati is out to get him, he isn't saying it to amuse people. Yet, it amuses people.

If Democritus was not a borderline crackpot, this is another false analogy.

I'm saying that santa, like god, is unprovable, and that both are analogous in that sense, yes.

I asked if you take santa seriously and you answer that he is unprovable.

Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy.
Try again, pseudo-philosopher.

I asked you: who takes the belief in santa seriously compared to who takes the belief in god seriously. And you answer: "Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy"
:confused: .

So, santa is unprovable, and he has not been disproven, then. Even though you refuse to retract your statement that Santa has been disproven, that's okay, I'll forgive you. We all make mistakes, you including. Anyhow...

You must have missed where I retracted that statement. I called it "a bit of hyperbole". It can't be more than a couple of pages back.

Case closed.

You are leaving? :(

The rest of your post can safely be ignored.

Don't you mean you can't answer the questions? :D

You have pretty much proven my point, even though you refuse to do so willingly. No matter, my work here is done.

:)



I'm not really trying to win an argument, I'm just trying to put another perpective on things.

regards,
BillyJoe

[Lonewulf]

Don't you mean you can't answer the questions?

There is no point to answering them.

Also, yes, I do have a point, but I can see it bounced off your skull.

You claimed Santa Clause was disprovable. You have yet to retract that claim. I do not understand why, in particular, perhaps ego points.

Santa Clause is not disprovable, and in fact is just as provable as the deistic God. Thus, the two are equal.

That the majority of the population takes one seriously and the other not is meaningless in terms of logic or philosophy or science or anything else.

If you claim that if a majority of people believe something, that that lends it more weight, then you are committing the Argument by Popularity fallacy.

To argue that a majority of a population taking something seriously lends it more weight is to commit the exact same fallacy.

In this argument, you have used the Argument by Incredulity fallacy and the Argument by Popularity fallacy, and also have seemingly lied about Santa Clause being "disprovable".

Not very good so far.

[BillyJoe]

Oops, sorry, I thought you had gone.

And I don't take the deistic God seriously. Nor have I ever seen any reason to....A God that supposedly created the universe but doesn't interfere? Might as well not even exist. And without evidence for his existance, that's even more true.


But the very fact that you are making an argument against the deistic god shows that you do take the question of that god's existence seriously. At least more seriously than santa. Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa. Seriously, would you?

God was made by the same minds that made up Santa Clause...


That is not true, Lonewulf, and I think you know that.

However, YOU stated that Santa Clause could be disproven. Which you have failed to do so, continuously...Are you willing to retract your statement now, or do you wish to continue to be a pseudo-philosopher?


Seems you did miss it. :(

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.
God was not created as a fictional character but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.

[BillyJoe]

You claimed Santa Clause was disprovable. You have yet to retract that claim. I do not understand why, in particular, perhaps ego points.


I count three times now counting my last post.

Santa Clause is not disprovable, and in fact is just as provable as the deistic God. Thus, the two are equal.


Another way of explaining this is that just because two things are equal in one respect, doesn't mean that they are automatically equal in all respects.

That the majority of the population takes one seriously and the other not is meaningless in terms of logic or philosophy or science or anything else.


So you say.
Do you disagree that what was created purely as a fictional character for someone's amusement is equivalent to what was created as an explanation for some things for which we have as yet no explanation?

If you claim that if a majority of people believe something, that that lends it more weight, then you are committing the Argument by Popularity fallacy.


And if I am not claiming that?
I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as.

In this argument, you have used the Argument by Incredulity fallacy and the Argument by Popularity fallacy, and also have seemingly lied about Santa Clause being "disprovable".


I have explained why the Argument by Popularity fallacy does not apply. I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation. And I have explained my hyperbole about the disproof of santa claus, after twice admitting to it.

[BillyJoe]

...and I am still not getting email alerts to this thread. :(

[Lonewulf]

I count three times now counting my last post.

Oh, well.

Okay, then.

Another way of explaining this is that just because two things are equal in one respect, doesn't mean that they are automatically equal in all respects.

They are similar philosophically, logically, and scientifically. They are unverifiable events made by demonstrably fallible human minds, and not only cannot be disproven nor proven, but also have no predictable effects.

So you say.
Do you disagree that what was created purely as a fictional character for someone's amusement is equivalent to what was created as an explanation for some things for which we have as yet no explanation?

I disagree that God couldn't be fictitious himself. A fictional character created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science.

Now we have a workable method, which has done wonders in not only the prediction of effects in the universe, but also is able to trace back things far enough into the big bang.

We have a workable method. Why do I need an invisible guy that cannot be defended in any scientific sense?

And if I am not claiming that?
I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the point. Santa has as much evidence for him as does God, and that was the point. You are the one that is claiming that I take him seriously.

I take neither Santa Clause nor God seriously, and I see them as analogous as they come. Hell, they both even have kickass beards. They also provide reward and punishment. The only difference is, I'd rather take the coal over hell.

I have explained why the Argument by Popularity fallacy does not apply.

Not very convincingly. Though if you will, point it out to me again, in case I mised it?

I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation.

"I don't take it seriously, therefore it's silly to pose it"

Not to mention how you've continually laughed at me for "seriously posing Santa's existance" -- Once more, an argument from incredulity. It seems silly to think that Santa exists, therefore he can't exist. If you were to prove Santa could be disproven, that argument would fail. Though you say you've retracted such, so I'll let it rest.

[Lonewulf]

Oops, sorry, I thought you had gone.

Unfortunatley, no.

But the very fact that you are making an argument against the deistic god shows that you do take the question of that god's existence seriously.

I sure as hell don't.

I take people that are willing to harm me or society seriously, and I oppose attacks on rationality and science, though. To me, that's what faith does.

At least more seriously than santa. Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa. Seriously, would you?

To prove a point, yes.

That is not true, Lonewulf, and I think you know that.

So the ones that made up Santa or God weren't human beings?

Seems you did miss it. :(

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.

Actually, not entirely true. Santa Clause is a pseudonym of St. Nicholas, who really did exist at one point of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

Maybe he was resurrected and flits amongst us as a ghost charioteer led by flame-nosed reindeer.

Hey, if Jesus did it, why can't he?

Jesus and my flame-nosed reindeer are similar: They're both fictional and silly to my point of view. The same is true of Santa Clause and God. Both are fictional from my viewpoint.

When you can give evidence of God's existance, then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just an uninteresting concept, a bedtime story.

God was not created as a fictional character...

Debatable.

...but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.

The deistic god is very easy to dismiss.

There is no evidence for him. He has no influence in the world. He only made things, and then vanished.

Pfah.

It's the most pathetic explanation there is, and what's even more pathetic is that you have to keep him hidden so deep into the closet so we can't prove things like if prayer works, or if miracles do happen.

It's a *********** tactic.

[Faithkills]

Don't worry - that's not condescending.

Please explain. Why can "living" things improve, progress, strive to continue living and "non-living" things can't? What's the difference between "living" and "non-living" things? I've not received answers to these questions from atheism - if you've found these answers, please share them.

Living things can because we observe that they can. We only have records so far but we can observe bits of adaptation directly. So while we don't have records of all of human and prehuman history we can watch bacteria evolve and look at fossilized remains.

And you are assuming without base that 'non living' things are incapable of the same thing, that electronic sentience is fundamentally impossible. I think that assumption will be proved wrong, the profit motive for such proof is huge.

[Faithkills]

Thanks all for your comments. I call atheism a belief system because it requires a system of other beliefs, like evolution for example, to support it.

Atheism does not require evolution to support it. Atheism merely requires you not to accept things as true with no evidence.

Evolution is it's own thing. You, as a believer, assume if you can undermine the theory of evolution you can undermine atheism. This is erroneous and pathetically illogical. You presuppose that even if you were successful in discrediting all other possible causes that somehow we would be forced to accept your fantasy cause.

Incorrect.

Not knowing is an acceptable state for skeptics, and more importantly much preferred to fabrication, or self serving delusion, or other serving delusion.

[wolfgirl]

What I meant was that santa is disproven by the fact that he was created as fictional character. He never had any existence except as a fictional character.
God was not created as a fictional character but as a means of explaining basic questions of our existence some of which remain unresloved to this very day.

That makes god not as easy to dismiss.But it still makes him someone who was "created," for whatever purpose. It makes him no less fictional that he was created to explain things we couldn't explain at the time than if he had been created to entertain children.

[wolfgirl]

Don't you see that there are other reasons why god cannot be as easily dismissed as santa?No. And I don't mean that facetiously. I really, truly and honestly don't see that there is any reason to take gods more seriously than I take any other mythological being.

[BillyJoe]

They are similar philosophically, logically, and scientifically. They are unverifiable events made by demonstrably fallible human minds, and not only cannot be disproven nor proven, but also have no predictable effects.


Oh well, if you still can't see the difference between a character created as a fantasy for children, and another character posed as an explanation for unresolved aspects of existence, then I guess I will have to give up trying.

I disagree that God couldn't be fictitious himself. A fictional character created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science.


And santa? Was santa also "created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science"? If not, santa and god are not analagous.

Now we have a workable method, which has done wonders in not only the prediction of effects in the universe, but also is able to trace back things far enough into the big bang.


But whilst things remain unexplained, don't you think you are a little premature about casting god with those other characters.
How can a photon be everywhere in no time as in relativity?
How is backwards in time causation at the quatum level be explained?
How can a quantum particle "know" the state of every other quantum particle in the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Until we know the answers to such questions, perhaps we are a little premature in casting god with the tooth faerie.

We have a workable method. Why do I need an invisible guy that cannot be defended in any scientific sense?


I didnt say you did. I just said the concept of god is just a little different than the concept of the easter bunny.

Which is, again, irrelevant to the point. Santa has as much evidence for him as does God, and that was the point. You are the one that is claiming that I take him seriously.


I showed you how the concept of god is taken seriously by billions of people around the world but no one takes the concept of santa seriously. You equated the concept of god with the concept of santa. Therefore I joked that you must take santa seriously. That's all. Just a joke.

Not very convincingly. Though if you will, point it out to me again, in case I mised it?


You quoted it in your own response::confused:
Here it is again...
"I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as."


BillyJoe:I have not been able to identify the source of your Argument by Incredulity fallacy accusation.
"I don't take it seriously, therefore it's silly to pose it"


I'm not convinced form the above that you know what the "Argument by Incredulity" is. Certainly it doesn't apply to the above.

Not to mention how you've continually laughed at me for "seriously posing Santa's existance" -- Once more, an argument from incredulity. It seems silly to think that Santa exists, therefore he can't exist. If you were to prove Santa could be disproven, that argument would fail. Though you say you've retracted such, so I'll let it rest.


Sorry If you interpreted it that way. Also I did so only once that I can remember. And it was meant as a little joke because god is a serious concept and santa is not and you equated the two.

[BillyJoe]

I sure as hell don't [take god seriously].


Yes you do. The very fact that you discus the god question seriously and have yet to do so about the tooth faerie, indicates that you think the god question is a serious one but the tooth faerie is not. At the very least, your consider the god question more seriously than you do the tooth faerie.

BillyJoe: Would you bother arguing against the existence of santa.
To prove a point, yes.


Well, then you will be left arguing with yourself because you won't find anyone willing to argue with you. Santa is a fantasy figure after all.

So the ones that made up Santa or God weren't human beings?


I said they were not products of the same mind.
When humans came up with god they had in mind something serious to explain what seems inexplicable whereas, when they came up with santa, they had fantasy and entertainment in mind.

Actually, not entirely true. Santa Clause is a pseudonym of St. Nicholas, who really did exist at one point of time.


Doesn't work for the tooth faerie and the easter bunny, so the point still stands.

.When you can give evidence of God's existance, then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just an uninteresting concept, a bedtime story.


What makes you think I'm interested in proving God's existence?
What makes you think I think it is even possible to do so?
How is it relevant to this conversation?

.The deistic god is very easy to dismiss....There is no evidence for him. He has no influence in the world. He only made things, and then vanished.


No evidence for the deistic god means you cannot prove he exists.
To prove he does not exist you need evidence that he does not exist.
You haven't provided it.


It's the most pathetic explanation there is [desitic god], and what's even more pathetic is that you have to keep him hidden so deep into the closet so we can't prove things like if prayer works, or if miracles do happen.


Yeah that's right, he's pretty difficult to disprove, as you imply and as I have been saying all along. However, if one day you can explain everything on my list in the previous post, there will be nothing left for the deistic god to do. We can then finally dismiss him. Until then he remains as a possibility, unlike the tooth faerie who never was even intended as a possibility in the first place, just a fantasy for the amusement of the kids.

[BillyJoe]

But it still makes him someone who was "created," for whatever purpose. It makes him no less fictional that he was created to explain things we couldn't explain at the time than if he had been created to entertain children....And I don't mean that facetiously. I really, truly and honestly don't see that there is any reason to take gods more seriously than I take any other mythological being.


The tooth faerie is not even remotely relevant to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You may not like god as a reason but, until you can show why there is something rather than nothing, god remains as a possibilty.

[quixotecoyote]

The tooth faerie is not even remotely relevant to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You may not like god as a reason but, until you can show why there is something rather than nothing, god remains as a possibilty.

I contend the question is meaningless as written. Why should reality exist in this way and not that way? Why should physics function the way it functions and not some other way? Why are elements reducible to atoms and not peanut butter?

Until you can explain why we live in an atomic universe instead of a peanut butter universe, the existence of Mr. Peanut remains a possibility.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/Mr_peanut-1.png

[BillyJoe]

I contend the question is meaningless as written.


You contend it do you?
Does this mean you don't have to bother to explain it.

Why should reality exist in this way and not that way? Why should physics function the way it functions and not some other way? Why are elements reducible to atoms and not peanut butter?


Maybe you first have to know the answer to the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. Or, to put it another way, how did something arise out of nothing?

[quixotecoyote]

You contend it do you?
Does this mean you don't have to bother to explain it.

Given that I elaborate immediately afterwards and you respond to me, I don't know what you're on about here.



Maybe you first have to know the answer to the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. Or, to put it another way, how did something arise out of nothing?

How do you know there ever was nothing? How do you know a reason exists?

Your implicit assumptions within the question are not justified or probably justifiable leading to the question being invalid.

[BillyJoe]

Given that I elaborate immediately afterwards and you respond to me, I don't know what you're on about here.


I didn't see the relevance of the rest of your post to the first part of your post. I still don't.

How do you know there ever was nothing?


I don't, but the alternative is no better. The alternative is that there was always something, which means that time is without beginning. This is no less problematic than how something can arise from nothing. There is no escape.

How do you know a reason exists?


How do I know there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing (assuming there was once nothing)? Again, I don't. But, if there is no reason, then there may be no reason for a lot of other things and then anything goes. Somehow I don't think that helps the case against god.

Your implicit assumptions within the question are not justified...


You have identified two assumptions in my question:
- that there was once nothing.
- that there is a reason why something arises from nothing.

The alternative to those is
- time without beginning.
- reasons are not necessary.

Both alternatives are problematic.

...or probably justifiable leading to the question being invalid.


I don't get that. :confused:

[Lonewulf]

Oh well, if you still can't see the difference between a character created as a fantasy for children, and another character posed as an explanation for unresolved aspects of existence, then I guess I will have to give up trying.

Indeed. And if you can't see the similarities of one fiction and another, I can't help you either.

And santa? Was santa also "created as an explanation for some things we couldn't understand in an age where we had no science"? If not, santa and god are not analagous.

Sure. They're both similarly unprovably, and similarly can't be disproven, but they're not analgous at all. :rolleyes:

The point is lost on religious fools, I guess.

But whilst things remain unexplained, don't you think you are a little premature about casting god with those other characters.

No.

How can a photon be everywhere in no time as in relativity?
How is backwards in time causation at the quatum level be explained?
How can a quantum particle "know" the state of every other quantum particle in the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Until we know the answers to such questions, perhaps we are a little premature in casting god with the tooth faerie.

"We don't know, therefore this invisible guy, God must have done it"?

If there is a God that made "something rather than nothing", then once again: WHO MADE GOD?

If God existed for eternity, then it's just as likely that "something" existed for eternity. The explanation explains nothing.

I didnt say you did. I just said the concept of god is just a little different than the concept of the easter bunny.

You mean the easter bunny, a character based on the day and idea of certain pagan fertility religious beliefs?

I'm skeptical. ;)

I showed you how the concept of god is taken seriously by billions of people around the world but no one takes the concept of santa seriously.

And yet, you still seem to not understand that it's a meaningless question. In philosophy, that's argument by popularity. In science, it doesn't MATTER what most people believe if it doesn't follow the scientific process.

You equated the concept of god with the concept of santa. Therefore I joked that you must take santa seriously. That's all. Just a joke.

Considering how much you layed into me with that joke and mocked me, I'm not amused.

You quoted it in your own response::confused:
Here it is again...
"I used the word "majority" (I said billions actually) merely because that is the case. The point was that people pose god as an answer to serious (some, as yet, unresolved) questions. No one poses santa claus as anything other than the fictional creature that he was created as."

I still fail to see your point.

I'm not convinced form the above that you know what the "Argument by Incredulity" is. Certainly it doesn't apply to the above.


So, because someone doesn't take something seriously, they can disregard it entirely without even considering it?

Okay. I don't take God seriously, therefore I can disregard it entirely without even considering it. You lose. :)

Or, mayhaps that's what's referred to as a logical fallacy?

Sorry If you interpreted it that way. Also I did so only once that I can remember. And it was meant as a little joke because god is a serious concept and santa is not and you equated the two.[/QUOTE]

You certainly mentioned the "taking Santa seriously" bit more than once, and ignored the overall point when you did so.

Once again, I am not, nor was I, amused.

[Lonewulf]

Yes you do. The very fact that you discus the god question seriously and have yet to do so about the tooth faerie, indicates that you think the god question is a serious one but the tooth faerie is not. At the very least, your consider the god question more seriously than you do the tooth faerie.

I've been keeping it about Santa, so let's not stray into other myths shall we? Santa is cooler than the tooth faery.

I take the God question seriously only because certain individuals will do OTHER, UNRELATED, serious things in the name of God. Including kill me and my family, or try to convert me, or do psychological damage to children as they convince kids that they WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

That does not mean that I take hell seriously. It's a ludicrous concept by sadistic morons.

It means that I take the morons seriously because they can kill over delusional beliefs.

Well, then you will be left arguing with yourself because you won't find anyone willing to argue with you. Santa is a fantasy figure after all.

And yet, I don't care. Religious fundies never get the irony of the situation where they will cast off Santa as "silly" because there's no proof, yet won't do the same with, say, God.

I said they were not products of the same mind.

They are both products of the human mind, and made for the same reasons: A human's desire to fantasize.

Doesn't work for the tooth faerie and the easter bunny, so the point still stands.

You mean, you don't believe in faeries? Ancient cultures did. Just because you don't have evidence for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Are you calling ancient cultures WRONG?

And Easter is based on pagan holidays. Are you saying that they're WRONG?

Either way, I mentioned Santa Clause in particular. It was you that brought up the tooth faery and easter bunny. Regardless, all of those faery tales have their own origins. Just like God.

What makes you think I'm interested in proving God's existence?

Then God is unprovable, and therefore uninteresting to serious purveyors of philosophy or science.

What makes you think I think it is even possible to do so?
How is it relevant to this conversation?

The whole discussion was over the provability of God. :rolleyes:

not[/I] exist you need evidence that he does not exist.
You haven't provided it.

What makes you think I'm interested in disproving that he exists?
What makes you think I think it is even possible to do so?
How is it relevant to this conversation?

Yeah that's right, he's pretty difficult to disprove, as you imply and as I have been saying all along. However, if one day you can explain everything on my list in the previous post, there will be nothing left for the deistic god to do. We can then finally dismiss him. Until then he remains as a possibility...

Like the chinese teapot? Hey, we haven't seen it yet, but it JUST MIGHT EXIST... so until we explore all of space, you can't say that there is no chinese teapot floating out there, right?

Sorry, I'm just not interested in invented invisible men that don't offer anything positive to the discussion besides making religious fundamentalists feel better about their raping boys and sending people to hell.

...unlike the tooth faerie who never was even intended as a possibility in the first place, just a fantasy for the amusement of the kids.

So you know for certain faeries don't exist?

Maybe faeries are those that influence quantum particles, with pixie dust.

Until you can explain all those quantum effects, you can't discount the Faeries Hypothesis!

Just like the Invisible Faery, which made the universe. If there's something instead of nothing, then there's a possibility it's a Faery in the Sky.

Hey, one idea is as good as another, right?

[quixotecoyote]

The alternative is that there was always something, which means that time is without beginning. This is no less problematic than how something can arise from nothing. There is no escape.

Eh? We are the theists, resistance is futile?

Anyway, by recognizing the possibility you've shown that it's not necessary to answer 'something from nothing' until being shown that it was actually 'nothing' to begin with. When did you stop beating your wife and all that.

How do I know there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing (assuming there was once nothing)? Again, I don't. But, if there is no reason, then there may be no reason for a lot of other things and then anything goes. Somehow I don't think that helps the case against god.

At some point in your quest for reasons you hit a fundamental level beyond which you go from physics to philosophy. At some point there is either the explanation "That's just how reality operates," or there is an infinite causal regression.



But all that aside I see your question as on par with a hypothetical ancient Greek theist who might claim that until you know what the top of Mount Olympus is like, you have to allow for the possibility of Zeus.

[BillyJoe]

Lonewulf,

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to respond to you because you continually change or misconstrue what I am saying and repeatedly explaining what I have said seems to make no difference....

I said that I did not mean to mock you, that it was just meant as a joke. I even went to the trouble of explaining how I meant it as a joke. But you continue with that accusation all the same.
It took three attempts to convince you that I had retracted a particular statement, before you would stop asking me to do so.
I said "the tooth faerie", you respond to "faeries"
I said "the easter bunny", you respond to "Easter"
You want to keep it with santa, but it was "santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie" right form the start.
I said god cannot be dismissed as easily as [name your fictional character] and you respond by asking me to prove god exists.
I said there are unanswered questions at the beginning of time and space, which is the scenario in which god is posited but, instead of addressing that, you respond with the teapot, which was never had to have anything to do with these questions.
You make statements about god that are irrelevant to the discussion and which you seem to assume I agree with just because I don't agree that the god question is equivalent to the tooth faerie.
I make it clear I do not agree with those statements but you continue with them all the same.


In short I don't think we are getting anywhere.
If you disagree I am happy to try to continue, but I can't see a way foreward at this point.


You almost come close to understanding what I am saying at the end of your last post....

Maybe faeries are those that influence quantum particles, with pixie dust.
Until you can explain all those quantum effects, you can't discount the Faeries Hypothesis!
Just like the Invisible Faery, which made the universe. If there's something instead of nothing, then there's a possibility it's a Faery in the Sky.


The problem is that is was god that was posited as a an explanation for these unresolved questions, not faeries. If "god" had been called "the tooth faerie", I would agree with the above. As it is, "the tooth faerie" is the name given to the intentionally fictional character who swaps your fallen out tooth for money. The character, who is posited as the explanation for the ultimate questions is called "god".

To make it perfectly clear, I live my life as if god does not exist. Because there is no evidence for him. Okay. All I am saying here is that god cannot be dismissed as easily as the tooth faerie for reasons that I have given above.

[tsig]

Santa was never intended as anything other than an amusing story for children. Except for children under about the age of five, no one has ever seriously believed that santa exists. Santa does not play any serious role in the mental life of any person past age five. Santa is not a possible explanation for anything of any consequence. No one seriously wants to disprove santa. Santa was only ever intended as pure fantasy, frivolity, and entertainment.

God, on the other hand, arose out of a serious need to explain some of the most important things in our universe. It is a serious consideration for an enormous number of highly intelligent adults on our planet. God could be the ever existing being who created everything else in existence. God, in a sense, is no more mysterious than the fact of quantum entanglement, the fact of backwards in time causation in quantum interactions, the fact of the holistic interconnectivity of all the quantum "particles" in the universe, or the unfathomable reason why there is something rather than nothing.

In brief, god is concerned with the serious questions of our existence, santa with pure frivolity, fantasy, and entertainment. Which leads me back to my original point that you cannot dismiss god as easily as you can dismiss santa.




I'm not sure why you want to continually attribute statements to me that I have not made. :confused:
I'm not sure why you want to add to the list of characters either, but I'll go with it: santa, the tooth faerie, the easter bunny, and....the chinese teapot!

So you admit that god belief arose out of human need?

Sounds like humans created god.

[BillyJoe]

Eh? We are the theists, resistance is futile.


Well, it's IS one or the other, isn't it:
- something from nothing or
- time/space without beginning.
If you can think of another possibility I will be glad to hear it.

Anyway, by recognizing the possibility you've shown that it's not necessary to answer 'something from nothing' until being shown that it was actually 'nothing' to begin with.


But if it's not nothing to begin with, then it's time/space without beginning. Whichever you choose, you have the unresolved question of what it actually means.

At some point in your quest for reasons you hit a fundamental level beyond which you go from physics to philosophy.


Exactly. Physics is not providing the answers here. Meaning that we can be less confident about dismissing possibilities.

At some point there is either the explanation "That's just how reality operates," or there is an infinite causal regression.


"Infinite causal regression"?
"That's just how reality operates"???
Isn't that just a way of saying "We don't know"?
But that is my point. We have absolutely no idea what we even mean by "something from nothing" or "time without beginning" (take your pick - it has to be one of those unless you have some other ideas).

But all that aside I see your question as on par with a hypothetical ancient Greek theist who might claim that until you know what the top of Mount Olympus is like, you have to allow for the possibility of Zeus.


Again, all I have claimed is that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.

[BillyJoe]

So you admit that god belief arose out of human need?


Yes, a human need to have answers to the unresolved questions of existence.

Sounds like humans created god.


Humans create lots of ideas.
Here are some others:
- the universal interconnectedness of quantum particles to explain entanglement.
- backward in time causation at the quantum level to explain the delayed choice double slit experiment.
- the bubble universe to explain the universal constants.

[tsig]

The tooth faerie is not even remotely relevant to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You may not like god as a reason but, until you can show why there is something rather than nothing, god remains as a possibilty.

There's something rather than nothing because if there were nothing we would see nothing but since we see something, something is there and no god is needed because we see something and it is there.

I take Allah very seriously and so do half of mankind and growing. Allah exists!

[tsig]

Yes, a human need to have answers to the unresolved questions of existence.




Humans create lots of ideas.
Here are some others:
- the universal interconnectedness of quantum particles to explain entanglement.
- backward in time causation at the quantum level to explain the delayed choice double slit experiment.
- the bubble universe to explain the universal constants.


So god exists to provide humans with the "answers to the unresolved questions of existence"?

I think you have got god confused with sex.

[BillyJoe]

There's something rather than nothing because if there were nothing we would see nothing but since we see something, something is there and no god is needed because we see something and it is there.


That is the reason why this must be the case, but it doesn't explain how it is the case.
We know that something must have arisen from nothing. But we have no idea how that is even possible. Absolutely no idea. In fact, it seems impossible for that to happen. Yet it must have happened.
Either that or time has no beginning. Which leaves us with a similar conundrum.

I take Allah very seriously and so do half of mankind and growing. Allah exists!


Good for you. :cool:

[BillyJoe]

So god exists to provide humans with the "answers to the unresolved questions of existence"?


We do not know whether or not he exists, but many humans certainly do posit him as the answer to these questions.
But I think you are having a joke. :rolleyes:

I think you have got god confused with sex.


Well who can blame me when she keeps yelling "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" :rolleyes:

[tsig]

That is the reason why this must be the case, but it doesn't explain how it is the case.
We know that something must have arisen from nothing. But we have no idea how that is even possible. Absolutely no idea. In fact, it seems impossible for that to happen. Yet it must have happened.
Either that or time has no beginning. Which leaves us with a similar conundrum.




Good for you. :cool:

Time can have no beginning because the very idea of starting involves time, any statement about "the beginning of time" has no semantic content.

[BillyJoe]

Time can have no beginning because the very idea of starting involves time, any statement about "the beginning of time" has no semantic content.


That's exactly what I'm talking about. :)

So now you are left with explaining how something from nothing.
Good luck! :D

[tsig]

We do not know whether or not he exists, but many humans certainly do posit him as the answer to these questions.
But I think you are having a joke. :rolleyes:




Well who can blame me when she keeps yelling "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" :D

Not in the first statement.

If god exists to provide meaning to humans it seems you are having the tail wag the dog.

You good sense of humor.

If we can't laugh at ourselves, we're not going to be able to take it when others do.

[tsig]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. :)

So now you are left with explaining how something from nothing.
Good luck! :D

If I could explain what you want, we would not have to argue about MY existence.

I guess I just don't have those needs to have an absolute answer.

Or maybe my needs are nothing more than a loving wife and good friends.

Thanks for the posts but I don't see any common ground for further discussion on this topic.

I will watch for any posts you want to make.

BTW I am not a muslim, I was trying for a point but I guess I was too dull.'

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to respond to you because you continually change or misconstrue what I am saying and repeatedly explaining what I have said seems to make no difference....

I just don't see how you don't comprehend the base argument.

Quite frankly, I can reject claims that have no evidence for them, as I can reject any fictional character. Until you come up with an idea that has predictions, or evidence, or something other than, "Oh, well, until we see the top of the mountain we don't know if Zeus can't exist!", it's a silly thing to have "faith" in, or go and kill other people for.

I said that I did not mean to mock you, that it was just meant as a joke. I even went to the trouble of explaining how I meant it as a joke. But you continue with that accusation all the same.

If it was a joke, I still do not see it as funny. We can move on, it was a small point anyways.

It took three attempts to convince you that I had retracted a particular statement, before you would stop asking me to do so.

Yeah, that was my fault.

I said "the tooth faerie", you respond to "faeries"

If faeries existed, thus the Tooth Faery could exist. The Tooth Faery would be a part of the ordinary belief of faeries (albeit a bit sillier). However, you cannot disprove that faeries exist.

I said "the easter bunny", you respond to "Easter"

Yes. The Easter Bunny has history, don't'chya know? 'Sides, I was being more light hearted with that regardless.

To switch from Christianity to a deistic god seems about as logical as switching from belief in a pagan holiday to just believing in the easter bunny to me...

You want to keep it with santa, but it was "santa, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie" right form the start.

You may not realize this, but my arguments are not everyone else's. I was talking about Santa exlusively at first, though my overall point had to do with fictional characters. Nonetheless, Santa Clause has most of the same similarities to God, which I explained earlier.

I said god cannot be dismissed as easily as [name your fictional character] and you respond by asking me to prove god exists.

Right.

You claim that "multiple dimensions" exist or somesuch, but you don't seem to realize that just because an individual takes something more seriously, does not make that character more likely to exist. In terms of logic, seriousness does not equal evidence in any way, shape, or form.

You want to refuse an argument over Santa Clause's existance (which was brought up to prove a point about God in the first place), but you want to spend all of your days arguing over God's existance using nothing more than speculation.

And I'm supposed to take seriously the deistic God because "billions of people" believe in Him, when billions of people ALSO believe in crap like virgin virths, reincarnation, the afterlife and soul, cannibalism (Jesus bodies! Jesus bodies! Get yer Jesus Jerky!), and that some pope is "inspired by God", or that Allah will be merciful yet sends people to hell -- all without evidence, and all a construed fabrication.

The churches make lots of money off of people that "take it seriously". Just like scientology makes lots of money off it's cult members. But I don't take scientology's beliefs seriously at all -- nor do I take Christianity's, Catholicism's, Islamism, etc. You argue for the deist god, but yet, you seem to be in the minority if that's your only argument.

I said there are unanswered questions at the beginning of time and space, which is the scenario in which god is posited but, instead of addressing that, you respond with the teapot, which was never had to have anything to do with these questions.

Unanswered questions does not mean you get to believe in, without doubt and with only faith, a speculative answer, without being ridiculed or not taken seriously.

You make statements about god that are irrelevant to the discussion and which you seem to assume I agree with just because I don't agree that the god question is equivalent to the tooth faerie.

I don't see why they're so unequivalent. I have yet to see why one fictional character is different than another because some measure of the population "takes it more seriously".

If you want a serious argument over the situation, once more, what people think is serious does NOT lend any type of evidence or weight to the argument.

You almost come close to understanding what I am saying at the end of your last post....

The problem is that is was god that was posited as a an explanation for these unresolved questions, not faeries. If "god" had been called "the tooth faerie", I would agree with the above.

Minor correction: I said "faeries", not "The Tooth Faery". Maybe you should look into ancient mythology some more before you continue? Maybe look into what faeries actually were?

Faeries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faeries) were mythical beings brought up as an understanding for certain things. They were believed by ancient cultures, and appeared in many mythologies (as well as fictional tales). Thus, they are analogous to your God Hypothesis. Thus, I can substitute it with a Faery Hypothesis -- that invisible tiny faeries are pulling the strings of the world together.

Or maybe I could propose the Hungry Hungry Hippo hypothesis -- tiny invisible hungry hungry hippos go and hunt for quantum particles.

It's all the same thing. I'm just trying to speculate on "invisible creatures", or maybe one Ginormous Invisible Creature (Like God), all without evidence, mathematics, or even logic.

As it is, "the tooth faerie" is the name given to the intentionally fictional character who swaps your fallen out tooth for money. The character, who is posited as the explanation for the ultimate questions is called "god".

You fail here. See above as to why.

To make it perfectly clear, I live my life as if god does not exist. Because there is no evidence for him. Okay.

Well, that's good at least.

All I am saying here is that god cannot be dismissed as easily as the tooth faerie for reasons that I have given above.

I remain unconvinced.

[BillyJoe]

tsig,

If god exists to provide meaning to humans it seems you are having the tail wag the dog.


But isn't that the role models play in physics - to provide meaning to humans. As someone pointed out before, atoms and quarks do not actually exist, they are just an abstractions, our attempts to make sense out of it all. But at the deepest and most basic level reality is (if not incomprehensible) weird and bizarre and shocking (I'm talking about quantum physics here). And we still have to choose between time without beginning and something out of nothing.


You good sense of humor....If we can't laugh at ourselves, we're not going to be able to take it when others do.


Good philosophy. :)

[BillyJoe]

tsig,

If I could explain what you want, we would not have to argue about MY existence.
I guess I just don't have those needs to have an absolute answer.


That's good because there are no absolute answers to those questions.
My point is that, if that is true, perhaps we are a bit premature dismissing the god hypothesis.
Again I should remind you that I am not supporting that hypothesis.

Or maybe my needs are nothing more than a loving wife and good friends.


Good for you. :)
(seriously this time :))

Thanks for the posts but I don't see any common ground for further discussion on this topic.
I will watch for any posts you want to make.
BTW I am not a muslim, I was trying for a point but I guess I was too dull.'


I understood what you were saying.
I think it was my reply that was too dull.

[BillyJoe]

Lonewulf,

Quite frankly, I can reject claims that have no evidence for them, as I can reject any fictional character. Until you come up with an idea that has predictions, or evidence, or something other than, "Oh, well, until we see the top of the mountain we don't know if Zeus can't exist!", it's a silly thing to have "faith" in, or go and kill other people for.



I am not talking about faith. And I am not talking about killing people. The deistic god doesn't have to be a matter of faith. Amd he is certainly not about killing people. For me he is just an interesting concept. I accept that the deistic god is possible like I accept that the bubble universe/multiverse is possible. No proof for either. You ask "explain where this deistic god came from". Similarly I ask "explain how time without beginning is possible" or "explain how you can possibly get something from nothing", or "explain how backwards in time causation is possible", or "explain the instantaneous cosmic interconnectedness of quantum particles". We do not know the answers to these questions.

If it was a joke, I still do not see it as funny. We can move on, it was a small point anyways.


Perhaps I can see that in retrospect. Anyway, yes, let's.

You claim that "multiple dimensions" exist or somesuch, but you don't seem to realize that just because an individual takes something more seriously, does not make that character more likely to exist. In terms of logic, seriousness does not equal evidence in any way, shape, or form.


I mean god is a serious attempt to explain what no one yet has an explanation for. By god I mean the ever existing being who created everything else. No more ridiculous than time without beginning, or something out of nothing. Really, and I know I speak in vain, those other mythical characters play no role in the discussion about these ultimate questions.

but you want to spend all of your days arguing over God's existance using nothing more than speculation.


I am not arguing over god's existence. I'm arguing that he cannot be dismissed as easily as those othe characters. As I said, god is an interesting concept to me (in line with those other concepts I mentioned above), not a matter of faith.

And I'm supposed to take seriously the deistic God because "billions of people" believe in Him, when billions of people ALSO believe in crap like virgin virths, reincarnation, the afterlife and soul, cannibalism (Jesus bodies! Jesus bodies! Get yer Jesus Jerky!), and that some pope is "inspired by God", or that Allah will be merciful yet sends people to hell -- all without evidence, and all a construed fabrication.


I am not asking you to take god seriously.
And certainly not for any of those reasons you've listed above.

The churches make lots of money off of people that "take it seriously". Just like scientology makes lots of money off it's cult members. But I don't take scientology's beliefs seriously at all -- nor do I take Christianity's, Catholicism's, Islamism, etc. You argue for the deist god, but yet, you seem to be in the minority if that's your only argument.


Nobody makes money out of the deistic god as far as I know.

Unanswered questions does not mean you get to believe in, without doubt and with only faith, a speculative answer, without being ridiculed or not taken seriously.


I didn't say "without doubt" and "with only faith".
I am not "for god", but I am against him being dismissed as easily as those other characters.
I think we will just continue to disagree.

[quixotecoyote]

Well, it's IS one or the other, isn't it:
- something from nothing or
- time/space without beginning.
If you can think of another possibility I will be glad to hear it.


Yep those seem to be the possibilities. I do note god isn't on that list.



But if it's not nothing to begin with, then it's time/space without beginning. Whichever you choose, you have the unresolved question of what it actually means.

......

Exactly. Physics is not providing the answers here. Meaning that we can be less confident about dismissing possibilities.

If you want to put forward a theory of god with testable predictions, then we can keep the possibility. If you can't, we don't have to keep that possibility open any more than hyper dimensional leprechauns pulling the universe out of an oversized kettle.

There's no reason to keep absurd possibilities on the table based on a non-answer to a question you admit you don't know the meaning of.








"Infinite causal regression"?
"That's just how reality operates"???
Isn't that just a way of saying "We don't know"?
But that is my point. We have absolutely no idea what we even mean by "something from nothing" or "time without beginning" (take your pick - it has to be one of those unless you have some other ideas).

My previous answer bears repeating; there's no basis to keep god as a possibility based on a meaningless questions.


Again, all I have claimed is that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.

And you've yet to move beyond argument from popularity on that front.

[Dunstan]

Nobody makes money out of the deistic god as far as I know.

Hmmmmm........ sounds like a market waiting to be exploited. If only I could figure out how.

[Lonewulf]

And you've yet to move beyond argument from popularity on that front.

Indeed.

That's pretty much all I have to say.

[volatile]

Billy, you're not doing too well here. Principally, you're answering a complex question by making it MORE complicated, not less. This type of answer is unsatisfactory, for a number of obvious reasons.

Saying "God did it" as a means to explain the origins of the universe makes your problem bigger, deeper, weirder. It, as Dawkins says, "doesn't answer anything at all". Once you postulate an omnipotent God as the answer to the current gaps in our secular knowledge, you just shift the First Cause problem one chain up the ladder. It's a postponement, not a solution.

Your entire argument, as already pointed out, is an argument from incredulity. You don't know why the universe exists, thus God did it (or might have, at least). As Lonewulf and others have tried to explain, this ad hoc postulation is no better an answer than saying faeries did it, or pixies, or that we're all in the Matrix or something.

We can't prove God didn't create the universe. We also can't prove that pixies didn't. But that doesn't mean we should hold either hypothesis seriously. To believe anything without evidence, or in the case of a lot of religious thinking even to believe something against the evidence, is silly.

[BillyJoe]

Yep those seem to be the possibilities. I do note god isn't on that list.


You haven't followed argument.

God is not on that list because I was showing where physics ultimately takes us. God is not derived from physics, therefore god is not on that list. Ultimately physics leaves us with two alternatives: time without beginning or something from nothing. We can't get our heads around either of these two possibilities. Therefore, seeing as physics does not provide the answers, perhaps we should not be too dismissive about alternative explanations.

See, it's easy.

If you want to put forward a theory of god with testable predictions, then we can keep the possibility.


This is not my argument so I don't have to do anything of the sort.
In any case physics fails us on the ultimate questions.

If you can't, we don't have to keep that possibility open any more than hyper dimensional leprechauns pulling the universe out of an oversized kettle.


The hyper dimensional leprechauns pulling the universe out of an oversized kettle posits qualities for the ever existing deistic god that created everything else that are entirely unnecessary.

There's no reason to keep absurd possibilities on the table based on a non-answer to a question you admit you don't know the meaning of.


Your hyper dimensional leprechauns pulling the universe out of an oversized kettle posits is absurd. The ever existing deistic god that created everything else is no more absurd that time without beginning or something out of nothing.

My previous answer bears repeating; there's no basis to keep god as a possibility based on a meaningless questions.


Those questions are not meaningless (one of them must be true). Your previous answer doesn't even address it.

And you've yet to move beyond argument from popularity on that front.


I am not going to repeat the explanation of why this was not my argument because there is no evidence that you will do anything other than misread and misunderstand it again this time.

[BillyJoe]

The CyoteAnd you've yet to move beyond argument from popularity on that front. Indeed.


Friggin' hell, can't anyone follow an argument around here?

[volatile]

Argument from Incredulity ("We can't get our heads around either of these two possibilities") with a God of the Gaps thrown in for good measure (" In any case physics fails us on the ultimate questions.").

Your argument boils down to "I don't know, so Goddidit (or 'Godmightadoneit')". It's patently ridiculous.

[Lonewulf]

Your hyper dimensional leprechauns pulling the universe out of an oversized kettle posits is absurd. The ever existing deistic god that created everything else is no more absurd that time without beginning or something out of nothing.

:D :D :D :D

LOL

[BillyJoe]

Billy, you're not doing too well here. Principally, you're answering a complex question by making it MORE complicated, not less. This type of answer is unsatisfactory, for a number of obvious reasons.


Since when is a more complex answer excluded?

What is more complicated, matter as cheese, or matter as a collection of atoms?
What is more complicated, the atom as a ball, or the atom as a collection of subatomic particles?
What is more complicated, the subatomic particle as a ball, or a collection of quarks?
Straightforward cause and effect, or backwards in time causation?
Non-locality/action-at-a-distance/entanglement anyone?

Saying "God did it" as a means to explain the origins of the universe makes your problem bigger, deeper, weirder. It, as Dawkins says, "doesn't answer anything at all". Once you postulate an omnipotent God as the answer to the current gaps in our secular knowledge, you just shift the First Cause problem one chain up the ladder. It's a postponement, not a solution.


Considering the increasingly complex answers provided by physics and, considering physics has no answers to the ultimate question, god can perhaps not be so easily dismissed as you may wish to believe.

Your entire argument, as already pointed out, is an argument from incredulity. You don't know why the universe exists, thus God did it (or might have, at least). As Lonewulf and others have tried to explain, this ad hoc postulation is no better an answer than saying faeries did it, or pixies, or that we're all in the Matrix or something.


If the faeries v god argument is not clear yet, I give up.
And I am not saying "God did it". I'm saying...see previous reply.

We can't prove God didn't create the universe. We also can't prove that pixies didn't. But that doesn't mean we should hold either hypothesis seriously. To believe anything without evidence, or in the case of a lot of religious thinking even to believe something against the evidence, is silly.


:(
Pixies are irrelevant to the ultimate questions.
Unless you define the pixy as the ever existing being who created everything else.

[BillyJoe]

Argument from Incredulity ("We can't get our heads around either of these two possibilities") with a God of the Gaps thrown in for good measure (" In any case physics fails us on the ultimate questions.").

Your argument boils down to "I don't know, so Goddidit (or 'Godmightadoneit')". It's patently ridiculous.


Strawman.
And you know it.
Otherwise why suddenly "or Godmightadoneit"?
Prick of conscience perhaps?

[BillyJoe]

:D :D :D :D


My God, I think you're finally getting it!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
(laughter of the gods)

[volatile]

Strawman.
And you know it.
Otherwise why suddenly "or Godmightadoneit"?
Prick of conscience perhaps?

Not at all. I know you're not a theist, you seem to be at most a deist and at least an agnostic. Not suddenly "Godmightadoneit", at all - you're entire argument rests on the so-called un-provability of the God hypothesis, and thus its acceptability in discourse.

We don't know why the universe exists, you say, thus God did or at least might have created it. That's your entire argument right there, in a nutshell.

[volatile]

Since when is a more complex answer excluded?

What is more complicated, matter as cheese, or matter as a collection of atoms?
What is more complicated, the atom as a ball, or the atom as a collection of subatomic particles?
What is more complicated, the subatomic particle as a ball, or a collection of quarks?
Straightforward cause and effect, or backwards in time causation?
Non-locality/action-at-a-distance/entanglement anyone?

The matter as a collection of sub-atomic particles is not more complicated than the atom as ball model , because the "matter as ball" model was not able to explain certain experimental results. The sub-atomic particles hypothesis did do this, and elegantly. It was a simpler way of explaining what was experimentally observed.


Considering the increasingly complex answers provided by physics and, considering physics has no answers to the ultimate question, god can perhaps not be so easily dismissed as you may wish to believe.I think you're confusing the word "complex" with "difficult to understand"...


If the faeries v god argument is not clear yet, I give up.
And I am not saying "God did it". I'm saying...see previous reply.

:(
Pixies are irrelevant to the ultimate questions.
Unless you define the pixy as the ever existing being who created everything else.OK, you're saying God might have done it. God of the gaps. We know.

As for pixies, I define pixies as "ever existing magical spirits who knitted the universe out of pixie dust". Prove the Pixie Hypothesis is false. You've told us its "irrelevant", but you've made no credible attempt to disprove it, because its impossible.

The fact that something could have happened is no reason to suggest that it did, or even might have.

[BillyJoe]

Not at all. I know you're not a theist, you seem to be at most a deist and at least an agnostic.


My position is that I believe in something only if there is evidence for it.
So, I am certainly not a theist, not a deist either, and barely even an agnostic, depending on the definition.

We don't know why the universe exists, you say, thus God did or at least might have created it. That's your entire argument right there, in a nutshell.


My original argument was that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the other characters mentioned. I have given my reasons.

Essentially it is that those other characters are not posited as answers to any ultimate questions, or really any questions at all, so that, although there is no evidence for or against them, I feel justified in disposing of them forthwith. At least I am not going to waste time arguing about their possible existence. God, however, is posited as an answer to the ultimate questions of our existence and, seeing as we have no answers to these questions and, seeing as physics seemingly cannot answer those questions in any meaningful way, the god question cannot be so summarily dismissed. That is all.

Nevertheless the lack of evidence that god exists means that I do allow him to play any practical role in my life. Despite what others may have assumed.

[BillyJoe]

The matter as a collection of sub-atomic particles is not more complicated than the atom as ball model , because the "matter as ball" model was not able to explain certain experimental results. The sub-atomic particles hypothesis did do this, and elegantly. It was a simpler way of explaining what was experimentally observed.


Well, it was originally thought that an atom was just simply a ball.
However, experimental results indicated that, no, it's a bit more complicated than that.
I think that is an accurate assessment.

I think you're confusing the word "complex" with "difficult to understand"...


I think the model of a ball is pretty simple
A model that has to incorporate electron clouds, energy levels, protons, neutrons, the strong nuclear force, quarks, and possibly vibrating strings, is surely a more complex model than a simple ball.


OK, you're saying God might have done it. God of the gaps. We know.



That really is too strong for my position. I have nothing invested in that god. And it is not god of the gaps. It is god as the ultimate answer to "time without beginning" or "something out of nothing", about which physics seems to have nothing at all to say. The deist god was never anything else, never like the theist god who is being literally squeezed out of existence by the advances of science.


As for pixies, I define pixies as "ever existing magical spirits who knitted the universe out of pixie dust". Prove the Pixie Hypothesis is false. You've told us its "irrelevant", but you've made no credible attempt to disprove it, because its impossible.



I will just refer you to my previous post.
If you want to discus the existence of pixies count me out, they are not positioning themselves as answers to any questions I'm interested in discussing.

The fact that something could have happened is no reason to suggest that it did, or even might have.


I agree. I rest short even of "could have happened". I see god as an interesting voice, in a way those other characters are not, in examining the ultimate questions of our existence. No more than that.

[The Grave]

Still on strings...


What I actually said was that it is wrong to say, as PT did, that:
"...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"
It is just as wrong to say that as it is to say:
"...if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"




There is no evidence for the string hypothesis.
Likewise for the god hypothesis.


What the really really really dumb people don't get is that.....


Say there was a really big present under my X-mas tree and it was not on my most wanted list, given to my parents.

I may decide to postulate how the hell it came to be there.



My great aunt....no she's dead.
My girl friend...no, she's tight!
god! No he's on holy-day!
Then it must be some guy santa.There is no evidence of santa, so the very intelligent among us say "Ho, ho ho, you must be joking!"

Let's look now at the GOD HYPOTHESIS... compared to santa:


Oh look a rainbow
I haven't got a clue how that is made
Let's invent a mystical creature called 'god'...IT created it after that flood I'm about to invent.
There's absolutely no evidence for god... AND BECAUSE it DOESN'T EXIST - yes you've guessed it THERE'S also NO EVIDENCE THAT it DOESN'T either.... gosh-golly-gee aren't I clever!
Griff.... Happy, Slappy, Crappy Happy Talk, Talk about things you like to trash....

You've gotto have a dream.........

[Lonewulf]

My God, I think you're finally getting it!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
(laughter of the gods)

Considering that you're *still* arguing the same kablooey, I'm not sure that I agree with you.

It is hilarious how you write off, without evidence, the "Leprechauns-make-universe-from-pot" theory, but "invisible-ubergod-consciousness-made-world-for-funsies" is still in. You write off one claim without evidence of nonexistance, but you do not write off the other claim. It is this core double standard that I find most amusing.

Well, it was originally thought that an atom was just simply a ball.
However, experimental results indicated that, no, it's a bit more complicated than that.
I think that is an accurate assessment.

I do believe that the argument you are arguing against is, principally, Occam's Razor. The argument has less to do with complexity, and more to do with invisible assumptions. The theory that has the least number of necessary assumptions is usually accepted over theories that have a greater number of necessary assumptions, provided that these assumptions have yet to be shown, and provided that the theory fits within current evidence known.

For example: There are more invisible assumptions in YEC (Existance of god, current evidence is wrong, instruments are all unreliable, theories need to be revamped, etc.), than current models of evolution. Not to mention that you'd have to ignore current evidence, so perhaps that is not the best example.

Another example is simplifying a model of a theory (such as, say, the orbits of the planets, back when it was thought that they all had perfect circular orbits and not elliptical orbits), as was pushed by Copernicus.

[volatile]

It might interest you to look over in the Proof of God (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84447) thread, in which we've all tried, really hard, to explain this to Billie...

[shalomsteph]

How weird...my atheism was solidified when I went to the Grand Canyon. I had goose bumps and a lump in my throat...and I knew that God did not exist. That did not happen in 6,000 years. No way. It threw creationism out the window.

[Lonewulf]

It might interest you to look over in the Proof of God (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84447) thread, in which we've all tried, really hard, to explain this to Billie...

Hm, I've been to that thread for a bit, but I gave up there as well. You're right, I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to Billy again.

Hey, let's call truce and argue over gun control again? As long as we're on Arguments that Never End (tm), let's have one that involves things that go boom... :D

[volatile]

Hm, I've been to that thread for a bit, but I gave up there as well. You're right, I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to Billy again.

Hey, let's call truce and argue over gun control again? As long as we're on Arguments that Never End (tm), let's have one that involves things that go boom... :D

How about a bare-knuckle fist fight to the death, instead? Probably more productive, and better for the spectators! ;)

[Lonewulf]

How about a bare-knuckle fist fight to the death, instead? Probably more productive, and better for the spectators! ;)

Sure, you're on. :D

I dare you to beat my Atheism Kung-Fu!