From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: chr0naut

Yet neighbour they are not sciences, and thus they hold no sway (and remember the topic of the thread) on how it all began and how it all ended. I speak as someone with a faith .... there is no evidence, for any of them. Them being the various spiritual paths.

As TzarChasm said "not enough data". Not enough being: Nill, Zero, None, Nada, Zip. YEt we have evidence for a couple of hte hypotheses in science.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

you said.
To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.

How long have people tried to prove god/s? Thousands of years no? What scientific evidence has been found? Zero.

Gotta bite the bullet at sometime and come to the conclusion that the god hypothesis is wrong.

Regardless of the time that has lapsed, coming to a conclusion without data is still not rational. Remember that there has been an atomic theory of matter since Democritus proposed it 2,446 to 2,386 years ago - it took thousands of years to prove it true.

Despite your denial, there IS scientific evidence that would support the hypothesis of the existence of god. All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur. One possibility is that it is like this because it was intended to be so. The data supports the hypothesis. Without definitive proof that this is not so, it is a possibility and may be true.

The only thing that there 'isn't', is proof supportive of the hypothesis that there is no god (that is what the 'no evidence', that you claim, means).

you said.
You seem to have the wrong ideas of religious history. Those "stories of old" seem to usually be about people doing their own thing regardless of the dictates of gods.

Go read the stories. The god/s walked amongst humans at one point in the past. Even the christian god! Check out genesis and adam and eve.

Hell most god/s mated and procreated with us.

Coomba98
p.s. sorry about the lack of quotes im on my phone and its to much of a hassel if im quoting sections of a post.

God hasn't left.

a reply to: chr0naut

Show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

TzarChasm answered the first part so ill go to your 2nd part of the post.

God hasn't left.

So where the bloody hell is he. Lol.
(Auzzie ad joke)

Actually ill answer one part of the 1st part of your response.

All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur.

Another argument from ignorance claim.

From wiki.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

(These examples contain or represent missing information.)

Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
Negative results Edit
When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
Evidence of absence Edit
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)

A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.
Arguments from ignorance Edit
(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).

...

I dont know therefore god/s.

Coomba98

Double post

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit.

Immediately after you show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the non-existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to the absence of God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit.

Did you not understand that repetition of the same question that others have asked adds nothing to a debate?

Perhaps I should start talking about how we need to go after ISIS. That seemed to serve as enough distraction eleswhere.

My point is not to prove the existence of God to you. I couldn't do it because you'd either deny the evidence or suggest that the evidence had another explanation.

My point, that I can show, is that there is nothing more logical, more scientifically evidenced or more rational about an atheist conclusion. The weaknesses in the theist case apply at least equally to the atheist case.

The same arguments can be turned to challenge the opposite, indicating that neither side has the advantage.

a reply to: chr0naut

"Immediately after you show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the non-existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to the absence of God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit."

Oh man, you're really not grasping the concept of positive claims and burden of proof.

What next, I need to "show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis of the non-existence of Zeus" as well, do I?

Your mental gymnastics are of an Olympic standard. You an I both know very well there is not a single shred of scientific evidence for God so you instead try and turn the tables back on me to avoid the question but in an inept manner that only serves to reveal either A) how little you know about the scientific method and the burthen proof or B) (most likely) how much you are prepared to abandon all logic to contort your reasoning in such a matter as to attempt to reconcile your subjective beliefs with the cold, hard reality of scientific objectivity and evidence.

It's quite sad, really.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

TzarChasm answered the first part so ill go to your 2nd part of the post.

God hasn't left.

So where the bloody hell is he. Lol.
(Auzzie ad joke)

Actually ill answer one part of the 1st part of your response.

All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur.

Another argument from ignorance claim.

From wiki.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

(These examples contain or represent missing information.)

Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
Negative results Edit
When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
Evidence of absence Edit
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)

A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.
Arguments from ignorance Edit
(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).

...

I dont know therefore god/s.

Coomba98

No, you seem to have completely missed the point of the Wiki article. "I don't know" means I don't know, not 'therfore god/s' (and also not 'therefore not god/s').

In my case, it isn't a lack of evidence. I have evidence that I cannot show you but that satisfies me, causing me to conclude that God exists.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nope didnt miss it. Ill go back a few pages.

Athiest means 'rejection of gods pending evidence.'

Its literally the rejection of god claims due to not only a lack of evidence, but also the rejection of being and accepting intellectually dishonest thoughts and opinions.

I dont know therefore god is totally unacceptable to a rational thinker.

Coomba98

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.

originally posted by: chr0naut

It is not rational to reject or accept a belief that does not have evidence to support it.

It IS reasonable to NEITHER believe nor disbelieve in the existence of Zeus, or in the existence of supernatural pixie beings, because of an absence of evidence.

I still disagree and see no reason to go along with that faulty philosophy. You can keep trying to rationalize believing in something with no evidence, but that's not how it works in philosophy or science. To suggest existence, one needs objective evidence. I don't need evidence to deny your position and it is absolutely more logical to not entertain a belief with no supporting evidence.

However, in regard to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH, I do have subjective evidence that, to me validates my belief and this also stands to negate belief in both Zeus and Pixies. I'm not the only person to do so.

Yes and I have subjective evidence that pixies and Zeus do exist. There is also plenty of subjective evidence for atheism as well. It doesn't get us anywhere in the discussion, however.

You have made the assumption that no-one has evidence for the existence of any god because you don't (or won't accept it). The truth is that the majority of humans believe and have believed in the existence of a god or gods.

Ok, first, it has nothing to do with me not accepting evidence. It's about the evidence not being objective, hence it does not prove anything.

Second, It doesn't matter that the majority of humans (in the past 10,000 years) have believed in a god or gods. That is appeal to popularity fallacy, and also assumes that religion was even around for the previous 2 million years of human existence. Most religious folk understand there is a lack of evidence, but believe anyway out of faith.

The US Declaration of Indepenence states; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - No atheist can truthfully state that! Most of humanity see and understand the "self-evident" evidence spoken of in the Declaration.

I don't care what phrasing the founders used when writing the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't give credence to the idea of a creator, just because it uses the phrase "self evident". That is reliant on opinion, not fact. An atheist simply says, "all people are equal" rather than "created equal". It doesn't change human rights, nor does it mean an atheist can't believe in equality. This is straw grasping here.

From my point of view, there is voluminous, enourmous, stupendous evidence for the existence of God. All of existence speaks of its Creator. The implicate order, reasonability and interrelational complexity in everything does not speak of random action. Random doesn't 'do' order. Yes, the ample evidence can be doubted but it exists none the less.

You keep using all these metaphors assuming that it helps your position. Voluminous, enormous, and stupendous, but nothing objective? Temporary order in the universe / on earth does not prove anything. Also, evolution shows directly that order and inter related complexity can arise from random mutations. So much for "random doesn't do order".

The atheist case, that there is no evidence of the existence of God, falls apart entirely if there is the slightest evidence that disproves it. This is because even the slightest evidence falsifies the condition that 'there is no evidence'. Using Popper's words as a metaphor, "a single black swan falsifies the statement that all swans are white". In this case, a single piece of evidence falsifies the statement that 'there is no evidence'.

But there isn't a single piece of objective evidence... so it doesn't falsify anything. I agree, if objective evidence is discovered that supports god, it will falsify atheism. We know this, but until this is found your argument is purely hypothetical and thus far every single thing that has been observed in the universe has been observed to not require any god(s) to function.

Even the smallest number has a greater magnitude than nothing. This holds in philosophy, science and mathematics, and shouldn't be too hard to understand. Atheism waves the 'nothing' flag. Theism upholds a thin, tattered and diaphanous 'evidence' flag but it has more substance than 'nothing' that atheism requires.

It's not the "nothing" flag, it's about non-existence of a single thing or rejecting the belief in god. Using the word "nothing" is a loaded statement that implies more than one thing does not exist. Logical default = 0(Nonexistence) for something with no supporting evidence. Theism does not have evidence, I'm sorry. What you consider evidence is purely hypothetical and speculative. It doesn't weigh the same as objective evidence, nor does it even come close to falsifying atheism.

originally posted by: chr0naut
It is not an argument from ignorance to find objective data showing complexity counter to entropy (chaos) and hypothesize as to how it may have come into being. A god hypothesis may provide a possible answer, until disproven and eliminated by test, it remains possibile. You can't discard scientific method and claim 'science'. The formation of hypotheses and theories does not represent ignorance, as they may be correct. Hypotheses and theories are part of the process toward knowledge.

It is illogical to assume complexity counters entropy or that it suggests god. The earth isn't a closed / isolated system, it receives energy from the sun, hence it's open to order and complexity (in the short term, the sun will eventually burn out of energy). You also have gravity that makes things appear to have order, but in reality objects in space are just reacting to forces and other objects. There are all kinds of debris and objects out there flying around. Chaos is everywhere, a rogue planet could crash into earth tomorrow and take us all out. Don't be disillusioned by our temporary set up here on earth. 99.99999% of the universe is uninhabitable.

The god hypothesis is not falsifiable. There is no way to test it, whatsoever. I'm not saying god is impossible, just that your evidence is not objective and requires numerous assumptions. The god hypothesis doesn't hold true until eliminated by tests. There are no tests. A hypothesis can't be a hypothesis if it is not testable. You can't discard the scientific method and claim science. Didn't you just say that?

To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.

No, an argument from ignorance is claiming that your position holds true until proven wrong, rather than demonstrating evidence to suggest it IS true, kind of like you did in that paragraph I quoted above.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Despite your denial, there IS scientific evidence that would support the hypothesis of the existence of god. All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur. One possibility is that it is like this because it was intended to be so. The data supports the hypothesis. Without definitive proof that this is not so, it is a possibility and may be true.

What data? Please show me the actual data that supports your claim that it was intended to be so? Just because the universe is there, and functions in that way, doesn't make it intentional. I explained entropy and order in my post above.

The only thing that there 'isn't', is proof supportive of the hypothesis that there is no god (that is what the 'no evidence', that you claim, means).

There is no hypothesis of no god, anymore than there is a hypothesis of no Zeus or hypothesis of no pixies. Science doesn't deal with negatives, it only proves positive claims. Hypotheses need to be testable. Burden of proof is on the ones that claim existence, not the ones that deny it. Can't believe you are still going on and on about this.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.

Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

Sure, as long as you don't mind suspending theism until somebody can provide even as much as a shred of objective evidence of god.

Math operates just fine without "the infinite" or nothingness, but at this point we do not know if either of those things exist or may have existed in the past. Don't confuse logical default with the idea of nothingness; OR infinity in numbers with an actual "infinite universe". In both cases they are vastly different concepts.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.

Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

That will never happened. Science cant study infinite. Or see past Our observable finite universe.

As time passes scientists will only observe less of Our universe. That means what they observe today will be gone for them in the future.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.

Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

No one worships math. You are still missing the point. Omniscience has not been demonstrated or measured, atemporality has not been demonstrated or measured, omnipotence and immortality have not been demonstrated or measured. These are adjectives employed to circumvent methods of measurement. Doesn't that strike you as even a little convenient?

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope didnt miss it. Ill go back a few pages.

Athiest means 'rejection of gods pending evidence.'

That isn't the definition of atheism. Try one of these:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster
What is Atheism? | American Atheists
Urban Dictionary: Atheist
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
Definition of "atheism" - Oxford Dictionaries
What is atheism? | Define atheism | Explain what atheism is. - CARM
Atheism - definition of atheism by The Free Dictionary
Atheism Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary - Bible study
What Is the Definition of Atheism? - Agnosticism / Atheism - About.com
Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What is Atheism? | Atheist Revolution
Atheism: Definitions of atheism - Secular Web
Official definition of "atheism" (and "atheist")
atheist Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
atheism | Britannica.com

... and so on.

Its literally the rejection of god claims due to not only a lack of evidence, but also the rejection of being and accepting intellectually dishonest thoughts and opinions.

I dont know therefore god is totally unacceptable to a rational thinker.

Coomba98

Nope, it is still 'I don't know' therefore 'I don't know'.

Think about this; If we do get evidence which proves the existence of god, it would be irrational to NOT believe.

To go beyond that simple statement is drawing a conclusion, even if you don't want to admit it. A conclusion based on no data is unreasoned, an opinion with no rational support.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.

Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.

That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.

Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.

The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.

In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.

The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.

A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.

The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.

Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.

Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?

No one worships math.

Have you never heard of Pythagoras?

You are still missing the point. Omniscience has not been demonstrated or measured, atemporality has not been demonstrated or measured, omnipotence and immortality have not been demonstrated or measured. These are adjectives employed to circumvent methods of measurement. Doesn't that strike you as even a little convenient?

As previously noted, exactly the same could be said for infinity and nothingness.