From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
They were in different posts. Perhaps the topic had moved on?

So by "the topic had moved on," you mean you ignored the post. Great. If you don't want to address the point and can't argue it, just say so.

You (and others) raised several points between those posts. I have attempted to resond to each post but I did not respond to all those that were a simple repetition of points already responed to. In your case, I have responded to every post that you have made in response to my previous posts, as far as I can recall, I ignored none.

Actually, it would appear that you ignored my posts and answers where I questioned your statement that atheism was a logical default. You still have not defended that (by the provision of a line of logical reasoning), instead, it appears that you have changed the topic, asking me to provide evidence that I'm fairly sure you would be bound to reject anyway.

Rules of logic and reason should be able to apply equally to both sides of an argument. This means that a rational analysis of an argument is to apply the exactly same critiques to both sides. If either side scores favourably over the other, then that side would be the 'logical default' - arrived at through logic and reasoning.

Your repeated special pleading that the atheist case should not be criticised in that manner (based upon it being 'an absence of belief' and therefore a 'non-thing') is not a reasoned response. The fervour of your responses betrays that atheism, for you, is a deeply (some might say religiously) held belief. Your denial of atheism as a belief is shown to be false by your responses - it is clearly your primary motivation to reject balanced reasoning in its case.

First, I say lack of objective evidence, not observed evidence. Second, you are misunderstanding what an observation is in science. It doesn't mean directly watching something in real time. It means gathering data. Of course nothing is dependent on watching things alone, that's why tests are performed. That doesn't give credence to the subjective reasoning you offered previously.

I am not confusing objective evidence with observed evidence at all. You are really clutching at straws now.

There is a joke about a news headline: "Scientist observes the electrons directly for first time!" with a byline of "Medical experts still working to un-pucker his face".

No, that's not what I was saying in the least. I was trying to say "Don't confuse logical default with nothing. Also, don't confuse the concept of infinite universe with infinity." 2 separate scenarios, 4 different concepts.

I pointed out that there were 4 concepts, you previously said that there were two. Does repeating my observation reclaim it for you or add to the debate somehow?

I was not confusing "the logical default with the idea of nothingness" - they are obviously unrelated concepts.
I was also not confusing the "infinity in numbers with an actual "infinite universe" (the universe must be finite or the night sky would be infintely bright from infinite numbers of stars).

Then why did you mention suspending math? If you already understand that the idea of nothingness and the idea of infinite universe have nothing to do with math, why suspend it based on lack of observing those particular things?

Please read the post in context (which is why I generally quote posts to which I apply). I know there are a lot of words there but I can assure you that there was a relationship between them all.

TsarChazm was suggesting that the igtheist view, that we dont have a strong enough semantic definition of the attributes of god because they have not been observed, is reason enough to abandon theism. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that notion by pointing out that mathematics has concepts that cannot be observed. I was clearly not actually calling for the suspension of mathematics (which I doubt would be achievable). I was trying to get TzarChasm to use some reasoning and see the absurdity of his argument.

Again, you are clutching at straws and your grip would appear to be slipping rapidly (note: I am using ironic metphor, I do not actually believe your hands are grasping fibrous dried plant products).

a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

a reply to: Noinden

Funny isn't it, I am sure evolution isn't Abrahamic but look at this thread and the response by the evolutionary believers.
Fundamentalist, ignorant and arrogant
As well as not having the capacity to understand, nay, they are haters of science

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it and how the tiniest spark of knowledge banishes it.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

Funny isn't it, I am sure evolution isn't Abrahamic but look at this thread and the response by the evolutionary believers.
Fundamentalist, ignorant and arrogant
As well as not having the capacity to understand, nay, they are haters of science

"Nay"?

Be patient, us humans all were created with the capacity to reason. We just need to allow the process some room to move.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Every definition I have seen of igtheism has failed to mention that the definitions of attributes of god are either currently well defined or may be in the future.

It only works if one remains ignorant.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Let's explore one of those terms that you say are undefined: 'atemporality'.

I would say that the simplest definition is that "An atemporal thing is one that is totally unaffected by the passage of time", i.e: it is what it is, regardless of time.

If I measure something that is atemporal at the Big Bang its values are no different than if I measure the same last Tuesday, right now, or even if I were to travel 129 billion years into the future.

The number 7 would be atemporal (like all other numbers) but perhaps this is a little too abstracted and not objective enough for you.

So, consider c the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum, ΩΛ (Omega-Lambda) the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. These are things that can be objectively examined and are atemporally unchanging.

In algebra an atemporal entity (lets call it 'αͲ ') definition would be: αͲ = αͲ + |T|

So, now that we have defined this 'oh so difficult' concept semantically and mathematically, and shown that such is evidenced objectively, you must reject the igtheist argument on the basis of your enlightenment.

Praise God!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Every definition I have seen of igtheism has failed to mention that the definitions of attributes of god are either currently well defined or may be in the future.

It only works if one remains ignorant.

Currently well defined by whose standards and by what methods? Igtheism doesn't say that there will be no suitable definition in the future, only that we don't have one now. Understand that I don't mean a definition as in a single line of condensed summarizing, I mean a book with charts and numbers and references and methods that can be reproduced by any competent student, a detailed analysis of the properties that comprise divinity, along with the tools and techniques for measuring these properties. No such encyclopedia exists. No such methods exist. No such measurements exist. So clearly, effort ought to be made to develop these assets to their utmost if we are to seriously investigate divinity. We owe it to ourselves to spare no discipline.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I dont believe in evolution neighbour. I know it to be so based in the testable evidence. Neither my Deities of worship nor your little Jehovah have an ounce of evidence. This we must believe in them.:

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I dont believe in evolution neighbour. I know it to be so based in the testable evidence. Neither my Deities of worship nor your little Jehovah have an ounce of evidence. This we must believe in them.:

I didnt say you were or were not anything
It was a passing statement, addressed to you not addressed at you, hence the word "they" as opposed to "you"

Oops, sorry you were offended

My point
Those with a religious bent towards evolution are as feral as anyone else around here

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I dont believe in evolution neighbour. I know it to be so based in the testable evidence. Neither my Deities of worship nor your little Jehovah have an ounce of evidence. This we must believe in them.:

I didnt say you were or were not anything
It was a passing statement, addressed to you not addressed at you, hence the word "they" as opposed to "you"

Oops, sorry you were offended

My point
Those with a religious bent towards evolution are as feral as anyone else around here

No one cares how you feel about the members here. We care about your constructive contribution to the actual topic.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I dont believe in evolution neighbour. I know it to be so based in the testable evidence. Neither my Deities of worship nor your little Jehovah have an ounce of evidence. This we must believe in them.:

I didnt say you were or were not anything
It was a passing statement, addressed to you not addressed at you, hence the word "they" as opposed to "you"

Oops, sorry you were offended

My point
Those with a religious bent towards evolution are as feral as anyone else around here

There's physical and mental evolution and resolving the mental in the physical has been the world's oldest profession as to a reason for being. Awareness often lays a trap that has skewered many a monkey so I have read in a sutta. Mindfulness is watching over a snake even when thought it a rope when walking along.

a reply to: chr0naut

Bro, I've explained the logical default point like a dozen times now. I'm not doing it again because you still can't comprehend that atheism is merely the rejection of theism and because you don't read my posts. There aren't 2 sides to this argument. There is one. There is theism, the affirmative claim that god exists. That's it. That needs evidence in order to logically believe it, not the conclusion arrived at due to lack of evidence for that position. It is dishonest to suggest burden of proof applies equally to both positions. The "side" that affirms existence is the one required to prove it, not people that call your claims unfounded.

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that notion by pointing out that mathematics has concepts that cannot be observed.

You must be completely blind or intentionally being deceptive here. How do you not see the issue?

Observing the infinite and/or observing nothingness are not required to use math. Math is essentially a human created counting system that works regardless of those things being physically observed. Math does not require observation, there are dozens of mathematical theories out there purely based on math itself. Nothingness is also not a concept of math. Zero is, but complete nothingness is much different, and is technically the absence of everything, math as well.

Observing god, or characteristics of god is absolutely REQUIRED in order to define god by that characteristic and/or to suggest that god exists. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Anyways, I'm done with this. I'm tired of being spun in circles back and forth, and then every time I put in the effort to type a long detailed response breaking down your claims, it gets ignored and the claims get repeated as if the post didn't exist. Arguing semantics is pointless. Burden of proof is on theism and it always will be. Atheism will always be the logical default until evidence for theism is provided and verified. If you don't agree, I don't really care. That is how reality works.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Let's explore one of those terms that you say are undefined: 'atemporality'.

I would say that the simplest definition is that "An atemporal thing is one that is totally unaffected by the passage of time", i.e: it is what it is, regardless of time.

If I measure something that is atemporal at the Big Bang its values are no different than if I measure the same last Tuesday, right now, or even if I were to travel 129 billion years into the future.

The number 7 would be atemporal (like all other numbers) but perhaps this is a little too abstracted and not objective enough for you.

So, consider c the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum, ΩΛ (Omega-Lambda) the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. These are things that can be objectively examined and are atemporally unchanging.

In algebra an atemporal entity (lets call it 'αͲ ') definition would be: αͲ = αͲ + |T|

So, now that we have defined this 'oh so difficult' concept semantically and mathematically, and shown that such is evidenced objectively, you must reject the igtheist argument on the basis of your enlightenment.

Praise God!

Not so fast there, 'navigator of time'. This evidence would have to be submitted with all other alleged proof to be analyzed and criticized by the best and brightest in all fields before being rejected or approved for funding in order to better flesh out the framework of your data. Not to mention this is an expression of a hypothetical, a hypothetical of a metaphor no less. Comparing a god to numbers? You may as well compare mahatma ghandi to the alphabet. When was the last time someone used theoretical physics to describe how wet water is? Where is your practical demonstration of atemporality? Show us an apple that resists gravity or a bird reverting to an egg. Merely submitting a few half-cocked equations on a conspiracy forum is hardly groundbreaking or compelling. As such, the igtheist problem persists. I salute your efforts however. Maybe one day your crusade will be rewarded and a substantial definition will be revealed, majestically nestled in a mountain of reproducable data and fully documented tools and methodology. Until then, no substantial definition, no productive discussion.

originally posted by: VP740
Infinity doesn't preclude a thing from having a beginning and and end. Though a mathematical construct, rather than a physical one, take the Koch curve , and just about any segment of it as an example.

Why is everyone so ignorant of Cantor's work? On a Property of the Class of all Real Algebraic Numbers. was published in 1874, and mathematicians have been building on his work ever since.

Yes that is all true when referring to math. By saying "the infinite", I was referring to observing something in reality, not as it applies in math. In that sense, it cannot not be observed.

a reply to: Barcs

No, that's just silly

Theism will be and always be the illogical default, atheism will always be the poor cousin that is forced on populations by guns, prisons and oppressed people, bit like yourself

The burden of proof on a faith, even a faith like yours doesn't exist, maybe in that illogical mind it does
History teaches religion like a weed in a garden will find its way in always, if the garden is not tended then the weeds overrun.
Just so we are clear, atheism is a belief, it's a religion, you have no proof of your faith about the existence of anything spiritual

Having solid evidence God doesn't exist proves yours is a religion, belief without evidence

And maths is not a human counting system, it's a bit scary that you think like an infant in a playpen.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Bro, I've explained the logical default point like a dozen times now. I'm not doing it again because you still can't comprehend that atheism is merely the rejection of theism and because you don't read my posts. There aren't 2 sides to this argument. There is one. There is theism, the affirmative claim that god exists. That's it. That needs evidence in order to logically believe it, not the conclusion arrived at due to lack of evidence for that position. It is dishonest to suggest burden of proof applies equally to both positions. The "side" that affirms existence is the one required to prove it, not people that call your claims unfounded.

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that notion by pointing out that mathematics has concepts that cannot be observed.

You must be completely blind or intentionally being deceptive here. How do you not see the issue?

Observing the infinite and/or observing nothingness are not required to use math. Math is essentially a human created counting system that works regardless of those things being physically observed. Math does not require observation, there are dozens of mathematical theories out there purely based on math itself. Nothingness is also not a concept of math. Zero is, but complete nothingness is much different, and is technically the absence of everything, math as well.

Observing god, or characteristics of god is absolutely REQUIRED in order to define god by that characteristic and/or to suggest that god exists. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

Anyways, I'm done with this. I'm tired of being spun in circles back and forth, and then every time I put in the effort to type a long detailed response breaking down your claims, it gets ignored and the claims get repeated as if the post didn't exist. Arguing semantics is pointless. Burden of proof is on theism and it always will be. Atheism will always be the logical default until evidence for theism is provided and verified. If you don't agree, I don't really care. That is how reality works.

Don't go away, you keep saying such entertaining things.

Aside from that, let's look at the whole 'logical default' bit from a less emotive standpoint (this will be an entirely speculative scenario, used to present a line of reasoning. The situation is fictional):

Lets say, a friend of yours has bought a new car. This friend is the type of person who is aquistive, competitive and revels in their achievements, often bragging about how great they are, in all areas of their life.

So they pull up in your driveway, leap from their car and bang on your front door.

When you answer the door, they tell you about their new car (which is out of your sight from the doorway) and ask if you'll come for a ride.

You are still in your dressing gown, fluffy pink slippers and fez (I don't know, I just imagined you like that), so you invite them in while you change into clothing more suitable.

Once appropriately dressed, you both venture out, but there is no car there!!

Your friend becomes apoplectic, proclaiming that they left the car running and someone has stolen it, with the keys and all the papers, they also demand to use the telephone and call the police.

You know your friend is the type of person who would never use public transport if possible, and that they did somehow get to your place, and there are no alternate vehicles around.

But there is no objective evidence at all of the car being there, as far as you can see.

Do you placate your friend by sharing that "in the absence of evidence, the logical default position is that it doesn't exist"?

My guess is 'no'.

Perhaps it isn't a default position.

Perhaps it isn't logical.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Let's explore one of those terms that you say are undefined: 'atemporality'.

I would say that the simplest definition is that "An atemporal thing is one that is totally unaffected by the passage of time", i.e: it is what it is, regardless of time.

If I measure something that is atemporal at the Big Bang its values are no different than if I measure the same last Tuesday, right now, or even if I were to travel 129 billion years into the future.

The number 7 would be atemporal (like all other numbers) but perhaps this is a little too abstracted and not objective enough for you.

So, consider c the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum, ΩΛ (Omega-Lambda) the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. These are things that can be objectively examined and are atemporally unchanging.

In algebra an atemporal entity (lets call it 'αͲ ') definition would be: αͲ = αͲ + |T|

So, now that we have defined this 'oh so difficult' concept semantically and mathematically, and shown that such is evidenced objectively, you must reject the igtheist argument on the basis of your enlightenment.

Praise God!

Not so fast there, 'navigator of time'. This evidence would have to be submitted with all other alleged proof to be analyzed and criticized by the best and brightest in all fields before being rejected or approved for funding in order to better flesh out the framework of your data. Not to mention this is an expression of a hypothetical, a hypothetical of a metaphor no less. Comparing a god to numbers? You may as well compare mahatma ghandi to the alphabet. When was the last time someone used theoretical physics to describe how wet water is? Where is your practical demonstration of atemporality? Show us an apple that resists gravity or a bird reverting to an egg. Merely submitting a few half-cocked equations on a conspiracy forum is hardly groundbreaking or compelling. As such, the igtheist problem persists. I salute your efforts however. Maybe one day your crusade will be rewarded and a substantial definition will be revealed, majestically nestled in a mountain of reproducable data and fully documented tools and methodology. Until then, no substantial definition, no productive discussion.

May all your pay cheques be so ratified!

No one suggested that the LHC shouldn't be built because we didn't know the mass of the Higgs Boson.

In real life, the "I don't know something, so why bother" is not valid reasoning. Igtheism is "I don't (at present) know the values involved so why bother".

This does not exclude that some of the values are known and defined quite well at present. Or that all those values may be well defined in the future.

The igtheist argument is one of personal ignorance and indifference in the moment.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: VP740
Infinity doesn't preclude a thing from having a beginning and and end. Though a mathematical construct, rather than a physical one, take the Koch curve , and just about any segment of it as an example.

Why is everyone so ignorant of Cantor's work? On a Property of the Class of all Real Algebraic Numbers. was published in 1874, and mathematicians have been building on his work ever since.

Yes that is all true when referring to math. By saying "the infinite", I was referring to observing something in reality, not as it applies in math. In that sense, it cannot not be observed.

So, you are suggesting that maths isn't a way of describing reality?

You do understand that things can exist regardless of if we observe them objectively* and that they don't un-exist because we haven't observed them.

(* Of course, the data would have had to be blessed by some high clergy of athesim. It couldn't be something that the vast majority of plebean humans had simply observed, like "gee, I appear to be having a religious experience, I wonder what that means"?).