From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: Barcs

Faith of any sort (and I say this as a person with faith) is not a leap of logic, its well a leap of faith. Based on a feeling. IO fully admit my polytheistic faith, along with every other person of faiths stance, is not one of actual logic.

Now as for people saying "God is highly probable" like you, I am awaiting the evidence, because I will get into the weeds of that one, and point out, that its probably not a singular thing (thing = deity), but rather many. I am sure if we ever get that grand unification theory sorted out (don't hold your breath people) that will be "proof" of "God" to many. Again logic is going to fly away from that.

The age old question of how humanity will deal with "another intelligent species in the Universe" applies here. How would folk deal with proof that there is or is not "gods"? Once you quantify them, they can be proven or disproved

a reply to: Noinden

Feeling is indeed an observation... so it seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, and the mind that brings them all together as one in existence.

A feeling is just a feeling in objectivity seeing just seeing see how that works? Becoming attached to feeling one becomes subject to it slave to it no different than any of the other senses and what occurs then? Desire, craving thirst or hunger for that same feeling but is it ever the same again? No it was an observation of a statistical likelihood that may or may not rise again but that is a personal experience how we work it out in the mind exits our mouths becoming and opinion of what we have observed but is what comes out of the mouth ever it in it's existence? For communication yes. For what it is in and of itself? No.

All the Solid Matter we see is locked to our specific dimension. We can only see, touch and smell things in our own dimensional spectrum. Each dimension is a spectral range, the entities within, are limited to acting only in their dimensions. However they and us have the ability to influence activity outside of our own dimensions. Religion refers to life outside of our own dimension as the dead, the devil, evil, satan, specters, ghosts. However, they are as much alive as we are. They are just stuck within their own dimension, as are we. They perceive us as dead, and themselves as alive. Magik and rituals are used to penetrate and influence other dimensions around us. If done correctly, the other dimension will react to the ritual, creating physical visible effects in our dimension. Most of us, have lost the techniques and skills needed to do this. Science and quantum physics and their techniques are just learning to penetrate into unseen dimensions.

a reply to: cgmaxed

Labeling the statistically unlikelihood of something occurring has already taken place... in not only religions but also in science fiction, fantasy etc. so if something does occur but yet with a very highly statistical unlikelihood from some dimensional plane... then how can science control and recreate such an effect? It can't that's why it is a phenomena, and what gets called personal experience and no amount of other validation can make that a re-occurring experience... but those that have had such things say believe and have faith in their woo... those that haven't are woo-fighters. Those still scientifically observing the phenomena when it arises... have yet to determine how to harness anything out of it other than tax free income and a rally to defend our understanding of woo over others understanding of woo in the name of tradition called war.

Of course that's the problem with extremes no room for any error in judgment that's why you do not make any as an agent of peace. That is why my bowl begs the question even though no begging actually goes on just pointing at the emptiness in a bowl hard to see but always present.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

It might depend upon the weight you give to slim evidence, as opposed to the absence of evidence?

I'm curious as to what you mean by "slim evidence". Philosophical statements based on undefined (or assumed) premises are not evidence.

Definitely not 'the non-existence of God', that has no explanatory power in this situation at all. It avoids the question.

Who says that lack of belief in a god explains anything? It doesn't explain, just like lack of belief in fairies doesn't explain anything. Where is the explanatory power in disbelieving anything that doesn't have evidence to support it? Atheism rejects belief in god, plain and simple. It doesn't need evidence, it's just the logical default, like lack of belief in fairies. You don't need evidence that proves fairies don't exist. You can rule it out because there is no evidence that suggests they DO. Existence of anything is a positive assertion, which means burden of proof is on the person who made the claim that something exists.

God has no explanatory power without invoking numerous assumptions as well, it's just a simple cop out explanation based on the fact that we don't know the answer to everything, so people invoke some magical all powerful all encompassing being that can break the laws of physics and exists outside of spacetime itself.

By definition atheism MUST have NO evidence of the existence of God to be valid. It must hold that the existence of everything is not even slightly, possibly, evidential of the existence of God.

Um, no. There is nothing it MUST have, aside from lack of belief in god. It is not a belief system, nor even a belief, it is rejection of somebody else's claim / belief due to lack of evidence. The existence of everything is evidence that everything exists. Not for god or materialism. You need to be way more specific than that if you wish to suggest there is any evidence of god.

One highly probable option for the current existence of everything is an 'uncaused first cause'. What this is, we don't know (but it is one of the definitions of God, that applies only to God and nothing else concievable). So maybe the existence of God is evidenced on a massive scale but we aren't defining it that way?

Highly probable? How could you possibly know that? You are appealing to personal belief here. I see it as much more probable that the universe functions in a cyclical fashion, rather than a linear fashion.

Either way, the atheist case is un-evidenced - totally. The slightest bit of evidence for the existence of God negates atheism.

Until that alleged evidence has been objectively proven, atheism remains the logical default.

"Because atheism doesn't need evidence, it is the default position", "because atheism doesn't need evidence", "because... "

Honestly, you cannot really hang your intellectual case upon a scientific requirement of hard objective evidence and then say the default position for such a mindset does not need evidence?

"But Brawndo has electrolytes... it's what plants crave..."

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

Sorry, life & stuff. I'm sure you know the drill.

The etymology of ignosticism is, firstly, a bastardized mix of Latin & Greek - a semantic impurity.

The Latin "ig" means, simply, 'not'. The Greek "gnosis" means 'to know'. The Latin "ism" refers to a; 'system, doctrine or practice'. So, my take on the definition of the word would be 'the system of not knowing' (which is different to the definition you supplied in the link, in a previous post). Ignosticism could be considered to be etymologically similar to agnosticism.

Similarly, igtheism is; 'the system of no god/s' (another mangling of roots as "theos" is Greek for 'god'!) and is very similar to atheism in an etymological sense.

However, igtheism and ignosticism have been defined as implying that athesim, theism and agnosticism all hang their definitions upon an assumed understanding of what "god" might be. Since there is no robust agreed definition of 'god', it is pointless to try and argue any case dependent upon the definition of 'god'. One must first define 'god' fully, if one cannot, then igtheism and/or ignosticism must be the default position.

However, to counter that, one might suggest that we DO have unique definitions that can only be applied to God or gods and therefore the 'ig' arguments are semantic pedantries.

So, it's a free-for-all. Pick your favourite flavour and run with that.

Of course there are protocols for defining things. Among these is the substantiation of whatever is being defined. In other words falsifiable data from repeatable experiments, that is if you expect the definition to have any practical application. Anyone suggesting that igtheism as an argument is pedantic clearly doesn't appreciate the importance of defining something before you attempt to confirm its existence. There are some doors you don't want to knock on without knowing what's behind them.

There is no requirement for falsifiable data in semantic definitions. Semantics can encompass absolutes (understood by all to be absolutes). One may define semantic concepts such as infinity or nothingness which are objective absolutes and cannot 'falsify' in the sense that Popper used to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

One could argue that, although we cannot falsify them, that they are meaningless or impractical. They are vital in our understanding of things.

So I would argue that there are attributes of God, which can only apply to God and are understood as having the same definitions to all who may consider them. The definitions are clear, nearly universal and specific. The fact that you can't measure gas pressure with an inch ruler alone does not mean it is an unreal concept (or if you consider it, a ruler is particularly useless in measuring the length of zero or infinity. It isn't the tool for the job - Mathematics and Philosophy are).

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Not if the "feeling" is something in the gut. Which is all what faith is. You can't quantify it. Or are you going to use the Jumping Jesus scale (google it).

originally posted by: chr0naut
"Because atheism doesn't need evidence, it is the default position", "because atheism doesn't need evidence", "because... "

Honestly, you cannot really hang your intellectual case upon a scientific requirement of hard objective evidence and then say the default position for such a mindset does not need evidence?

You pseudo philosophy guys always do this. You ignore the vast majority of what is posted to nitpick a single statement, ignoring any counterpoints and issues presented about your argument. This is not true philosophy. Logical flaws need to be addressed. Burden of proof needs to be followed. Fallacies need to be avoided.

I am not claiming atheism is proven or that the logical default is automatically correct. You ARE arguing that there is evidence for god and logical reasoning that holds valid in favor of a god. I don't post here to defend atheism or attack creationism, I post here to defend science and rationality. You are simply not being rational here.

You are ignoring burden of proof (a key logical tenant in philosophy) and making a special case for atheism, when it's no different than rejecting the numerous other things that have no evidence. Unicorns, flying crocodiles, fairies, intestinal gnomes, etc fall into this category. It is just as logical to reject those as it is to reject god, but you guys aren't arguing that A-uncornists, a-flyingcrocodists, a-fairists, and a-gnomists, need to prove those things don't exist (something that's impossible without complete knowledge of the universe) in order to logically reject that belief.

If you wish to assert that something DOES exist, you need objective evidence of such. It is not illogical to reject something that has no evidence. Trying to flip the script and claim that atheism needs evidence is ignoring basic logic. If you wish to prove atheism wrong, all you need is evidence for god. Unfortunately you have none. You have "what if" statements very loosely based on philosophy and attacks on atheism that don't hold merit.

There is no requirement for falsifiable data in semantic definitions

Not unless you want to actually prove the statements. All of those philosophical arguments for god say is, "IF my definition of god is right, then god exists". You can speculate on what ifs as much as your heart desires, but it's not proof, nor objective evidence. Logical reasoning only proves things, if the premise is provable.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
"Because atheism doesn't need evidence, it is the default position", "because atheism doesn't need evidence", "because... "

Honestly, you cannot really hang your intellectual case upon a scientific requirement of hard objective evidence and then say the default position for such a mindset does not need evidence?

You pseudo philosophy guys always do this. You ignore the vast majority of what is posted to nitpick a single statement, ignoring any counterpoints and issues presented about your argument. This is not true philosophy. Logical flaws need to be addressed. Burden of proof needs to be followed. Fallacies need to be avoided.

Science is based upon testing theories with objective evidence. Atheism says that there is no evidence of the existence of God. Science cannot test anything if there is an absence of evidence. Hence there can be nothing scientific about atheism in its present state. There may be an absence of evidence. One may draw conclusions about an absence of evidence but there is nothing scientific about such conclusions. Atheism, founded as it is on an absence of evidence, has no foundation in science. Until objective evidence exists that God does not exist, atheism has no scientific basis, calling it such is a fallacy. Therefore (again) using Christopher Hitchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I am not claiming atheism is proven or that the logical default is automatically correct. You ARE arguing that there is evidence for god and logical reasoning that holds valid in favor of a god. I don't post here to defend atheism or attack creationism, I post here to defend science and rationality. You are simply not being rational here.

I am being rational. I am using the tools of logic and reason. You just said it yourself, where you said that I am "arguing that there is evidence for god and logical reasoning that holds valid in favor of a god". You contradict yourself in the same paragraph and accuse me of not being rational? Posting that you are "defending science and rationality" while rejecting the same when offered from elsewhere (from some of the greatest minds in history - I just quoted them) is contradictory and not a rational counter agrument.

You are ignoring burden of proof (a key logical tenant in philosophy) and making a special case for atheism, when it's no different than rejecting the numerous other things that have no evidence.

See that, you say i'm "ignoring a burden of proof" and in the same sentence you say there is "no evidence". No evidence = no proof. If there is "no proof", what "no proof" might I be I ignoring?

Perhaps I have a wrong idea of proof or evidence because it appears you have contradicted yourself again.

Unicorns, flying crocodiles, fairies, intestinal gnomes, etc fall into this category. It is just as logical to reject those as it is to reject god, but you guys aren't arguing that A-uncornists, a-flyingcrocodists, a-fairists, and a-gnomists, need to prove those things don't exist (something that's impossible without complete knowledge of the universe) in order to logically reject that belief.

"Unicorns, flying crocodiles, fairies, intestinal gnomes (goes to show that if you can think of it, it is a 'thing' on the internet).

If you wish to assert that something DOES exist, you need objective evidence of such. It is not illogical to reject something that has no evidence. Trying to flip the script and claim that atheism needs evidence is ignoring basic logic. If you wish to prove atheism wrong, all you need is evidence for god. Unfortunately you have none. You have "what if" statements very loosely based on philosophy and attacks on atheism that don't hold merit.

Actually, I can assert the existence of all sorts of incredible and fantastic things. What I cannot truthfully say is that that my assertion is rational, objective or scientific (but I could still lie). Please explain the logical or rational process by which I might accept something without the slightest evidence. If you have such a process, then I will accept that "It is not illogical to reject something that has no evidence". I would counter that such acceptance is pure opinion with no basis in fact.

I also never said that atheism requires proof. I said the opposite, that atheism requires that there is no proof. This means that atheism is nothing but opinion, totally un-evidenced and has no basis in fact or reason. The assertion that it has rational support or has a basis in science is an obvious falsehood.

Additionally, I want to alert you to a quirk of the statistics of things we may possibly concieve to exist. As my previous links quoted from you show, even fantastical things that we concieve of have some substance in the vast majority of the cases. Do some research for yourself on "rectal LED's" or some other preposterous concept. More often than not, these things exist somewhere out there. Their non-existence, on the other hand, is itself nearly non-existent.

There is no requirement for falsifiable data in semantic definitions

Not unless you want to actually prove the statements. All of those philosophical arguments for god say is, "IF my definition of god is right, then god exists". You can speculate on what ifs as much as your heart desires, but it's not proof, nor objective evidence. Logical reasoning only proves things, if the premise is provable.

The totality of fine points of definitions of God are not required to to prove the existence of God. If only a single definition has validity, it stands as a unique definition that would indicate the likelihood that God exists (stronger than an unevidenced case). Therefore, to fix your quote, "If ANY definition of God is right, then God must exist (in definition)". There are many definitions, uniquely of God (i.e: that cannot be applied to anything else), that exist - unarguably.

It is like saying that the standard model doesn't exist because it doesn't explain why neutrinos have mass. It can absolutely exist without us knowing all that there is to know about it. The argument that something cannot exist unless we know absolutely everything about it is stupid because we do not have absolute knowledge. Things still exist and we know it (objectively).

Atheism is the hideout of a weak mind, it has no basis in reason (and rejects reasonable arguments because they are just thinking, not objective evidence) it has no basis in science as it is unevidenced.

a reply to: chr0naut

It all boils down to the fact, you can not show evidence for your God to exist, over say none, or my ALL gods. End of story. Deities are out side the purview or interest of science.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

It all boils down to the fact, you can not show evidence for your God to exist, over say none, or my ALL gods. End of story. Deities are out side the purview or interest of science.

I was arguing the rational weaknesses of the atheist standpoint, not comparative theology.

But there are attributes of God that I am aware are examined in concept comparatively. Perhaps if you want to you could research Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (the evolutionary biologist who brought Peking Man to Europe) and Frank Tippler (Physicist) for their theological explorations and conclusions. My preference is more toward attributes of a personal God like the Christian one rather than Spinoza's, Brahma and Islam's more abstract conceptualizations.

But I'll have to agree with you, as I have said before, science is the wrong tool for the job. It simply cannot probe absolutes.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is no rational weakness in atheism. That is absurd and I say this as a polytheist. Your biaeses are peaking out and influencing your objectivity here.

Also who says your Deity is an absolute?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science is based upon testing theories with objective evidence. Atheism says that there is no evidence of the existence of God. Science cannot test anything if there is an absence of evidence. Hence there can be nothing scientific about atheism in its present state. There may be an absence of evidence. One may draw conclusions about an absence of evidence but there is nothing scientific about such conclusions. Atheism, founded as it is on an absence of evidence, has no foundation in science. Until objective evidence exists that God does not exist, atheism has no scientific basis, calling it such is a fallacy.

We are in agreement here. I did not say that atheism is scientific, it is the logical rejection of a claim that has no objective supporting evidence.

Keep in mind, however, that just because atheism is not scientific, does not somehow give credibility to the opposing position. If you are arguing for a creator, mentioning atheism is pointless because theism is also completely unscientific. There is no requirement that the opposing position of an illogical one needs evidence. It is impossible to prove non existence of anything as I've already gone over. What you are saying is the same as saying that non belief in fairies is unscientific. Well sure, but that doesn't mean they exist or that believing in them is logical. Atheism remains the logical default until evidence is discovered that points to god. Plain and simple.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

This same exact thing applies to your philosophical arguments for god. I thought I already addressed this in detail. Without evidence for the existence of god, the position can be dismissed. Atheists are not asserting their position as fact, they are rejecting yours.

I am being rational. I am using the tools of logic and reason. You just said it yourself, where you said that I am "arguing that there is evidence for god and logical reasoning that holds valid in favor of a god". You contradict yourself in the same paragraph and accuse me of not being rational? Posting that you are "defending science and rationality" while rejecting the same when offered from elsewhere (from some of the greatest minds in history - I just quoted them) is contradictory and not a rational counter agrument.

It is not rational or logical to flip the burden of proof to the folks that reject your viewpoint when you cannot logically demonstrate your own position. It is a red herring in the discussion, used to distract away from the fact that your position is extremely flimsy.

See that, you say i'm "ignoring a burden of proof" and in the same sentence you say there is "no evidence". No evidence = no proof. If there is "no proof", what "no proof" might I be I ignoring?

Perhaps I have a wrong idea of proof or evidence because it appears you have contradicted yourself again.

Are you not following the conversation? The burden of proof is on YOU, because you are arguing for the POSITIVE CLAIM OF EXISTENCE of a creator or god. There is a clear lack of evidence for your position. It is not illogical to reject that which has no evidence of existence. Atheism does not assert the existence of anything and this is where your argument breaks down.

"Unicorns, flying crocodiles, fairies, intestinal gnomes (goes to show that if you can think of it, it is a 'thing' on the internet).

Sigh... I guess you didn't understand the point of my examples, but feel free to keep ignoring that it is logical to reject god due to no evidence.

If only a single definition has validity, it stands as a unique definition that would indicate the likelihood that God exists (stronger than an unevidenced case). Therefore, to fix your quote, "If ANY definition of God is right, then God must exist (in definition)". There are many definitions, uniquely of God (i.e: that cannot be applied to anything else), that exist - unarguably.

You just completely proved my point. It relies on "what if". I don't care what if, I care what IS. It is pure speculation. IF any definition of god is accurate, and the logical construction of the statements are accurate and based on fact then, sure, god exists. But we can't determine whether any definition is valid without objective evidence to study.

The argument that something cannot exist unless we know absolutely everything about it is stupid because we do not have absolute knowledge.

But this isn't the argument. The argument is that it is logical to reject things that have zero evidence to support their existence as per burden of proof. I'm not saying that a god absolutely CANNOT exist, and it has nothing to do with not knowing everything about god. You are appealing to extreme positions here, because we know literally NOTHING about a god or creator. This may change one day if evidence is discovered.

Atheism is the hideout of a weak mind, it has no basis in reason (and rejects reasonable arguments because they are just thinking, not objective evidence) it has no basis in science as it is unevidenced.

Stop attacking the opposing position and do more to support your own position. That is how logic and reasoning works. This isn't the presidential debate, this is about your argument for a creator. You have not made any reasonable arguments thus far. Every statement in support of a creator relies on what ifs rather than logic and evidence, which means it doesn't apply to objective reality. What if statement are not equally as valid as objective ones based on evidence.

And FYI, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was not an evolutionary biologist. He worked in paleontology and geology (with no real credentials in any of those). He was a philosopher and Jesuit priest.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Science is based upon testing theories with objective evidence. Atheism says that there is no evidence of the existence of God. Science cannot test anything if there is an absence of evidence. Hence there can be nothing scientific about atheism in its present state. There may be an absence of evidence. One may draw conclusions about an absence of evidence but there is nothing scientific about such conclusions. Atheism, founded as it is on an absence of evidence, has no foundation in science. Until objective evidence exists that God does not exist, atheism has no scientific basis, calling it such is a fallacy.

We are in agreement here. I did not say that atheism is scientific, it is the logical rejection of a claim that has no objective supporting evidence.

As atheism has no supporting evidence, either, it is no more 'logical' than its opposite.

Keep in mind, however, that just because atheism is not scientific, does not somehow give credibility to the opposing position. If you are arguing for a creator, mentioning atheism is pointless because theism is also completely unscientific. There is no requirement that the opposing position of an illogical one needs evidence. It is impossible to prove non existence of anything as I've already gone over.

You are wrong. It IS possible to prove that things which are physical and/or logical impossibilities, cannot exist. To be the logical default, Atheism would need to prove that God CANNOT exist, it falls short of that.

What you are saying is the same as saying that non belief in fairies is unscientific. Well sure, but that doesn't mean they exist or that believing in them is logical. Atheism remains the logical default until evidence is discovered that points to god. Plain and simple.

In that post, I explicitly avoided, where I could, mention of the alternate case to atheism. I specifically attacked the Atheist hypothesis from its own internal contradictions. Your assumption that I was promoting the alternate case to atheism is based upon your own prejudicial beliefs. The default position where knowledge of the truth is absent would be Agnosticism which says, simply, that "I do not know". Atheism is not the default on grounds of reason or logic.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

This same exact thing applies to your philosophical arguments for god.

... but I did not make argument for the existence of God at all, in that post.

I thought I already addressed this in detail. Without evidence for the existence of god, the position can be dismissed. Atheists are not asserting their position as fact, they are rejecting yours.

So you are suggesting that Atheists assert that their position is not fact?

That Atheists oppose Theists because they don't like Theists or their beliefs is not a reasonable, rational or logical refutation. It is prejudice, pure and simple.

It is not rational or logical to flip the burden of proof to the folks that reject your viewpoint when you cannot logically demonstrate your own position.

This works both ways. As I was not promoting the opposing hypothesis (Theism), it is entirely rational and logical of me to flip Atheist argument, pointing out that Atheist arguments against Theism can also be reasonably applied against Atheism itself. This indicates the weakness of the use of Atheist arguments for supporting an Atheist case by opposition.

It is a red herring in the discussion, used to distract away from the fact that your position is extremely flimsy.

My position is that Atheism has very weak, to no basis, in evidence, logic or reason and my position is very strong.

Are you not following the conversation? The burden of proof is on YOU, because you are arguing for the POSITIVE CLAIM OF EXISTENCE of a creator or god. There is a clear lack of evidence for your position. It is not illogical to reject that which has no evidence of existence. Atheism does not assert the existence of anything and this is where your argument breaks down.

The existence of everything 'might possibly' be evidence for a Creator, or not. Yet on the other side we have Atheism which has no explanation for existence itself. As you said, "Atheism does not assert the existence of anything", yet stuff still exists. Atheism is therefore revealed to have no predictive or practical value as theory, either.

You just completely proved my point. It relies on "what if". I don't care what if, I care what IS.

I used the word "if" because I was re-stating your hypothetical statement. I'll re-state my revision of your quote: ""If ANY definition of God is right, then God must exist (in definition)". As you see, were were talking about the semantic meaning and usefulness of the concept of a "definition". What I said does not "prove your point" that it is all based upon "if's", because, absolutely, those definitions referred to, do exist.

As Atheism has no evidence of "what IS" and "doesn't assert the existence of anything", you can hardly state that an Atheist view gives a rats' ar$e about "what IS".Saying so is empty rhetoric, full of emotion but devoid of reason or logic. Atheism is based upon what ISN't.

IF any definition of god is accurate, and the logical construction of the statements are accurate and based on fact then, sure, god exists. But we can't determine whether any definition is valid without objective evidence to study.

You are confusing a 'definition' of an attribute applied to a God concept as being equivalent to the existence of God. The definitions do objectively exist as definitions. Such definitions provide no support for Atheism at all but may possibly lend support to Theism.

But this isn't the argument. The argument is that it is logical to reject things that have zero evidence to support their existence as per burden of proof.

It IS illogical to think that a similarly un-evidenced proposition is, therefore, somehow better.

As I have previously suggested, there may be circumstantial evidence for the existence of God. Atheism, however, MUST have no evidence, not even slight, subjective or circumstatial evidence of the existence of God, to stand.

You are appealing to extreme positions here, because we know literally NOTHING about a god or creator. This may change one day if evidence is discovered.

Tell me, what form of evidence would prove the existence of God to you?

Theres a high probability that something cannot come from nothing.

However, unless we can demonstrate 'nothing' in an empirical way we cannot say for sure.

And by demonstrating 'nothing' you make it a something.

This is a circular argument that goes nowhere.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Barcs

And FYI, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was not an evolutionary biologist. He worked in paleontology and geology (with no real credentials in any of those). He was a philosopher and Jesuit priest.

Richard Dawkins has also been called an Evolutionary Biologist and is similarly uncredentialled for the role.

Interestingly, Julian Huxley, the founder of the Modern Evolutionery Synthesis, wrote the preface for Teilhard de Chardin's book "The Phenomenon of Man" where he outlined Teilhard de Chardin's impressive credentials but also the debt that the subject of Evolutionary Biology owed to Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy and work in the field.

Teilhard de Chardin had dual Baccalaureates of Philosophy and Mathematics, a Licentiate (equivalent to a modern PhD) in Literature, he studied Theology, Geology and Palentology at Hastings, he completed his Theology studies there, being ordained as a Priest but continued his studies of Geology and Palentology under Macellian Boule at the Institute of Human Palentology at the Museum of Natural History in Paris.

His studies were interrupted by the First Word War where he recieved a Military Medal and was made an Officer of the Legion of Honour.

He had a Doctorate in Geology at the Sorbonne and simultaneously was Professor of Geology at the Catholic Institute of Paris. He then was appointed Director of the Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Geology and Palentology in Paris.

He was proposed being given a Professorship to the College de France but declined it in compliance with an order not to accept it by the Church who at the time also rejected and tried to censure many of his writings.

He was a Membre de L'Institut, a member of the Academie des Sciences and Director of Research at the Center National de la Recherech Scientifique.

He moved to New York where he was employed at the Wenner-Gren Foundation were he played an important role in framing their anthropological policy and organizing international symposia.

He was not an Evolutionary Biologist by credential. He was a polymth and highly credentialled in Geology, Literature, Palentology. He was offered the pinnacle scientific accolade that existed at the time, a Professorship to the College de France.

Very few of todays scientist are as credentialled or as accomplished as he was.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

There is no rational weakness in atheism. That is absurd and I say this as a polytheist. Your biaeses are peaking out and influencing your objectivity here.

Also who says your Deity is an absolute?

I have clearly outlined the rational weaknesses in Atheism. It isn't absurd to speak of them.

Very many philosophers hold that deity is an absolute and appear to have have done so as far back as history stretches. Please take a glance at this Wikipedia article on "the Absolute" in Philosophy. It is a very common theme.

a reply to: chr0naut

No you've outlined your biases towards it. Your facts are disputable. Again I've no skin in the game, I'm a Polytheist, and see all views as valuable. Also just because a Philosopher feels something is so, does not make it so.

originally posted by: chr0naut
As atheism has no supporting evidence, either, it is no more 'logical' than its opposite.

Evidence and logic are 2 separate things, my friend. I already told you that atheism is logic based. Atheism asserts that there is no evidence for god, hence no reason to believe he/she/it exists. Thus far, its claims hold true because there is indeed no evidence for god, making it a logical position. To nullify this, objective evidence of a creator must be presented. You can't rationalize god by attacking non belief. With the claim of existence of anything, the burden of proof is always on the person claiming existence. You don't have to prove that it doesn't exist, to logically reject the claim.

You are wrong. It IS possible to prove that things which are physical and/or logical impossibilities, cannot exist. To be the logical default, Atheism would need to prove that God CANNOT exist, it falls short of that.

You have it backwards I'm afraid. When referring to the existence of something, you either show evidence for it, or logically reject the claim. You don't have to prove it doesn't exist. That is contradictory, illogical, and extremely poor philosophy. Again, you can't prove anything does not exist. If you disagree, then name something that has been proved to absolutely not exist.

Atheism is not the default on grounds of reason or logic.

Then neither is disbelief in magical fairies or space dinosaurs that defy the laws of physics.

So you are suggesting that Atheists assert that their position is not fact?

Is it not a fact that there is no objective evidence for god?

Alrighty then.

That Atheists oppose Theists because they don't like Theists or their beliefs is not a reasonable, rational or logical refutation. It is prejudice, pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with not liking theists. It's because their arguments are illogical and void of evidence but they try to force it on other people as truth or make up ridiculous apologetic rationalizations for believing.

This works both ways. As I was not promoting the opposing hypothesis (Theism), it is entirely rational and logical of me to flip Atheist argument, pointing out that Atheist arguments against Theism can also be reasonably applied against Atheism itself. This indicates the weakness of the use of Atheist arguments for supporting an Atheist case by opposition.

So you are now telling me that you were not just trying to post logical reasoning in favor of the existence of god? Did I miss something? I could have sworn this conversation started with a response to that reasoning.

I used the word "if" because I was re-stating your hypothetical statement. I'll re-state my revision of your quote: ""If ANY definition of God is right, then God must exist (in definition)". As you see, were were talking about the semantic meaning and usefulness of the concept of a "definition". What I said does not "prove your point" that it is all based upon "if's", because, absolutely, those definitions referred to, do exist.

If something is true, then it is true. That is all you are saying with that statement. It does not address my point about invoking definitions that can't be verified and using them as a basis for an argument. That is what I am referring to by "what if" statements.

As Atheism has no evidence of "what IS" and "doesn't assert the existence of anything", you can hardly state that an Atheist view gives a rats' ar$e about "what IS".Saying so is empty rhetoric, full of emotion but devoid of reason or logic. Atheism is based upon what ISN't.

Atheism isn't a view nor is it even a proper noun. It is merely lack of one belief. That's literally all it is. Your issue here is that you think that it is a belief system, when it's really just non belief in one concept. This explains the capital "A" in atheism, and your claims that it needs evidence. The issue is that an atheist's belief system could any one of the numerous belief systems that don't involve a god or could be none at all. It isn't a system in itself.

You are confusing a 'definition' of an attribute applied to a God concept as being equivalent to the existence of God. The definitions do objectively exist as definitions. Such definitions provide no support for Atheism at all but may possibly lend support to Theism.

I'm not confusing anything. I know definitions of words exist. We are talking about the existence of god, not words. I'm saying unless you can prove that those definitions accurately describe god, you don't have a valid argument. It's that simple.

It IS illogical to think that a similarly un-evidenced proposition is, therefore, somehow better.

See, you have to keep modifying your statement over time, because you already know that I never argued such. I didn't say atheism was better than belief in god. I said it made sense due to the lack of evidence for god.

As I have previously suggested, there may be circumstantial evidence for the existence of God. Atheism, however, MUST have no evidence, not even slight, subjective or circumstatial evidence of the existence of God, to stand.

Atheism is the default position and this stands until objective evidence of god is presented. Subjective, circumstantial, "might be", "what if" - type evidence does not count. Why do you feel atheism could be invalidated by subjective evidence? Is that your usual standard for judging the validity of a claim? If so, how do you filter reality from fantasy?

Tell me, what form of evidence would prove the existence of God to you?

Objective.

It doesn't matter what philosophers believe. Evidence talks, philosophy doesn't even make it to the hypothesis stage without objective evidence. Also, I fully admit I do not know the answer as to whether god exists or does not. But it is logical to reject a claim that doesn't have evidence, so I do just that. I could be convinced by objective evidence.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

Sorry, life & stuff. I'm sure you know the drill.

The etymology of ignosticism is, firstly, a bastardized mix of Latin & Greek - a semantic impurity.

The Latin "ig" means, simply, 'not'. The Greek "gnosis" means 'to know'. The Latin "ism" refers to a; 'system, doctrine or practice'. So, my take on the definition of the word would be 'the system of not knowing' (which is different to the definition you supplied in the link, in a previous post). Ignosticism could be considered to be etymologically similar to agnosticism.

Similarly, igtheism is; 'the system of no god/s' (another mangling of roots as "theos" is Greek for 'god'!) and is very similar to atheism in an etymological sense.

However, igtheism and ignosticism have been defined as implying that athesim, theism and agnosticism all hang their definitions upon an assumed understanding of what "god" might be. Since there is no robust agreed definition of 'god', it is pointless to try and argue any case dependent upon the definition of 'god'. One must first define 'god' fully, if one cannot, then igtheism and/or ignosticism must be the default position.

However, to counter that, one might suggest that we DO have unique definitions that can only be applied to God or gods and therefore the 'ig' arguments are semantic pedantries.

So, it's a free-for-all. Pick your favourite flavour and run with that.

Of course there are protocols for defining things. Among these is the substantiation of whatever is being defined. In other words falsifiable data from repeatable experiments, that is if you expect the definition to have any practical application. Anyone suggesting that igtheism as an argument is pedantic clearly doesn't appreciate the importance of defining something before you attempt to confirm its existence. There are some doors you don't want to knock on without knowing what's behind them.

There is no requirement for falsifiable data in semantic definitions. Semantics can encompass absolutes (understood by all to be absolutes). One may define semantic concepts such as infinity or nothingness which are objective absolutes and cannot 'falsify' in the sense that Popper used to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

One could argue that, although we cannot falsify them, that they are meaningless or impractical. They are vital in our understanding of things.

So I would argue that there are attributes of God, which can only apply to God and are understood as having the same definitions to all who may consider them. The definitions are clear, nearly universal and specific. The fact that you can't measure gas pressure with an inch ruler alone does not mean it is an unreal concept (or if you consider it, a ruler is particularly useless in measuring the length of zero or infinity. It isn't the tool for the job - Mathematics and Philosophy are).

I thought the discussion was in concern to quantifiable definitions and hard data, not semantics.