Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Then what is the point to suggest that in some absolute way something we cannot possibly understand such as all as reality can be defined in some ad hoc way?

You don't have to understand Everything to Understand Something. We may or may not be capable of understanding All Reality but that doesn't mean we aren't capable of understanding Some of Reality at least.

I don't have to have All the Answers in order to have Some Answers.

That is a common false argument by creationists actually. The claim that you can't know anything unless you know everything. But that is simply not the case. Not knowing everything about Reality doesn't mean we can't know Something about it. Just because we don't have all the answers for Evolutionary Theory doesn't mean we don't have Some of them.

While Creationists claim to have all the answers, ie: God. They can provide nothing to support the validity of those answers except once again, God, who they also can provide no verification for.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers but does claim to have some of them and can provide the data to verify why they are making that claim for anyone to verify for themselves.

When looking at things from an position of infinite possibilities either one of those can be correct or incorrect or both. But reality and logic should make one of them more plausible to any rational mind.

a reply to: vjr1113

We have mathematical evidence that reality is infinite and in relation we have discovered a particular aspect to such a conclusion in respect to Black Holes.

Again the idea that what some define as random could in fact be the result of order upon a scale beyond our comprehension.

A valid argument.

Evidence is apparent in nature where what seems random is not.

a reply to: mOjOm

Knowing something about reality in no way means one knows everything

No different than four blind men can know everything about an elephant from only evaluating one side of the animal.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Without evidence that God exist there is no evidence that God does not exist.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Knowing something about reality in no way means one knows everything

No different than four blind men can know everything about an elephant from only evaluating one side of the animal.

They don't have to know everything. Like your example each man doesn't realize it's an elephant. However, together they might know it's an elephant if they would share their data with each other man. Because each man knows something it is possible for them to all know reality even if individually they don't.

a reply to: Kashai

two things,

i personally believe that there is nothing infinite in the universe because of entropy

you are saying that the natural order of the universe may be proof for something supernatural, i have to disagree if i understand you right. id like to point out that black holes are not infinite but a singularity and do evaporate given enough time. math is an construct of the mind, infinity may exist on paper but not in nature

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi

Without evidence that God exist there is no evidence that God does not exist.

Either way, there is no reason to believe in them.

originally posted by: Kashai
To be clear there is no valid reason to treat the idea that Randomness resulted in reality.

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm not sure how many times we all have to explain this to you. By 'randomness', people are referring to "without a purpose". It came into being for no particular reason, yet we understand the plausible processes in which it arose (which isn't entirely random)

You continue to argue against a position that doesn't exist...

originally posted by: Kashai
The construct that this is possible is I am explaining is Anthromophism.

You've said "Anthromophism" over and over again. Do you mean to type "Anthropomorphism", because I've never heard of the term Anthromophism.

If you do instead mean "Anthropomorphism", then how is the concept of a universe coming into being without the use of a god anthropomorphic in any sense?

originally posted by: Kashai
My point is that there is today theoretically no real argument that anything is actually random. That we actually suggest such a thing is possible in fact is actually maintained in ignorance (scientific).

Your confusion stems from (again) a false premise. You don't even know what the opposition really claims, yet your arguing a standpoint that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Kashai
Simply stated there is no evidence that what some insists, represent randomness in reality is not the result of order upon some scale we as a culture are incompetent to comprehend.

In the process of sexual recombination, it is random chance that determines which genes come from each parent; thus chance determines the genetics that make us who we are. Yet this process is also not pure random chance! There is an actual process that allows for genetic variation, that certainly isn't chance. However, there are traits within the process that are in fact, random.

No one holds the position you are claiming is false. Why are you even arguing it? You've made up a position that you think exists, and then are refuting it.

originally posted by: Kashai
Any thoughts?

Will you stop saying this after every post? It's evident I'm going to respond to you, and it's evident that the conversation began in the OP, and it's evident you have more opinions on the matter. There's no need to continuously ask for my response in the middle of the conversation.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi

Without evidence that God exist there is no evidence that God does not exist.

this is irrelevant, we dont have to prove there is no other universes, only say there is no proof of other universes

a reply to: mOjOm

Not if they all speak a different language.

A point being that reality as whole could be as beyond current human capacity to comprehend as it would be for a Bactria to understand how to operate an fly an F-22 Raptor.

However even in the case of such an example I am engaged in Anthromophism.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Then what is the point to suggest that in some absolute way something we cannot possibly understand such as all as reality can be defined in some ad hoc way?

No one is suggesting that! Every single person here, including those who aren't atheists, have told you that Atheism isn't a position or argument, it is simply a lack of belief. When everyone, even those of opposing views, agree that you're incorrect, it's time to reconsider your original position,

can i just point out that you haven't defined god? only that you have said that you need faith to believe in it. if thats the case then i have no faith and you do. the discussion is over.

unless you can bring evidence, therefore faith is irrelevant.

a reply to: Ghost147

What you fail to understand is that by "not random" I obviously mean created as in having a purpose.

Reality can have a purpose and in so far as those who claim it could not, do not understand what we define as purpose is Anthromophism.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Not if they all speak a different language.

A point being that reality as whole could be as beyond current human capacity to comprehend as it would be for a Bactria to understand how to operate an fly an F-22 Raptor.

However even in the case of such an example I am engaged in Anthromophism.

It could be beyond human comprehension but it could also be within our ability to comprehend as well. We won't know until we reach the limit of what we can comprehend now will we??? So why would we conclude that we can't understand it before we've tried to figure it out??

If we can't comprehend it then using God isn't the correct answer either so why say it is??? It's not like we don't allow for that to be the answer. If we find out that in fact it is, then it is. But if it is we'll still need to be able to show why it's the answer and as of yet that isn't what the evidence is showing us.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

What you fail to understand is that by "not random" I obviously mean created as in having a purpose.

Reality can have a purpose and in so far as those who claim it could not, do not understand what we define as purpose is Anthromophism.

Any thoughts?

you are dangerously claiming to know something you cannot possibly know, the purpose of the universe. you can believe what you want but without proof, your belief will not be taken seriously

a reply to: Ghost147

Atheism is a lack of belief in something as defined by observation and the reliance that what was observed was not documented in a way consistent with there standards.

Atheism is an argument against a standard defined in the context of human limitations.

Again and for the record no major religion in retrospect to those who actually study in a grave way, conclude God as an abstract compared to common thinking.

a reply to: vjr1113

The problem with your argument is that without proof of something you claim "cannot exit", you have placed yourself in the same situation as you claim I am in.

My argument is simple "I do not know" .

a reply to: Kashai

ok good

if either of us can't know, what's the point in discussing it?

its like discussing whether or not another dimension exists, you believe there is and i dont. which is more reasonable?

a reply to: Kashai

Atheism is an argument against a standard defined in the context of human limitations.

Atheism isn't a verb it is a noun.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

Atheism is a lack of belief in something as defined by observation and the reliance that what was observed was not documented in a way consistent with there standards.

Atheism is an argument against a standard defined in the context of human limitations.

Again and for the record no major religion in retrospect to those who actually study in a grave way, conclude God as an abstract compared to common thinking.

It's not a lack of Belief in Something. It's a lack of belief in a God based on the lack of positive evidence to support the claim that a God exists. That's all.

I lack belief in God because there is no positive evidence showing that there is a God. My lack of belief isn't a positive assertion of anything. It requires no proof because it makes no positive claims.

God is not evidently true. If it was it would be evident to us all without question. So to claim that there is a God requires some evidence to prove it.

Does that make sense???