Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

T2, it's not circular at all. It's deductive working from the evidence. Furthermore, I'm not using it to solve any scientific problems, nor am I suggesting anyone abandon scientific method. That's just plain false. Hoyle didn't abandon the scientific method, nor did he use circular reasoning. I'm suggesting his approach is a valid one. Furthermore, again, even the strongest manifestation of the Anthropic Principle I've seen doesn't claim that Man is the center of the universe (literally or philosophically). In fact, the idea that these constants are the way they are due to some undiscovered natural principle is the conclusion of most strong readings of it.

 

Based on those criteria, either the creatures have no souls and so can't be damned or saved, or my God doesn't exist. Seriously, it's like saying, "Well, what if God just decided to damn people at random in the end. How would that be fair?" If you expect my God to judge it, then my God has to have made it, in which case it must be in fitting with my God's character.

... No, no, no, and have you gone screwy or something? God judges. By His standards. If you want to know how we're supposed to know what His standards are, I'd point you to the instruction manual, but I know you never read those things anyway.

 

pplr: I tried reading through your latest replies to me but I ran into so many of these unqualified assertions that I am "dodging" something or other and so much, apparently emotional nonsense. For this reason, coupled with your reading comprehension difficulties and my very limited capacity for responding to posts directed at me, I am not going to bother reading or responding to you at this point. if I get more time after responding to NOG's various replies below then I will see what I can do but if I use my limited time to respond to YOUR posts and thus ignore NOG's then I would rightly be accused of 'cherry picking' here.
I certainly disagree with NOG as much as I disagree with you but I get the sense that he at least understands a good deal of what I am saying, even if he does not concede the points I make.

The link you provided supports what I was saying but we are getting into an issue of interpretation here. Almost every philosopher I have talked to about this issue gives the definitions I have used here(which is where I got the definitions from in the first place. I did not make them up myself and so cannot take credit.)

As for specific sources to give you a fuller understanding of my usage of "agnosticism", this one is not complete but it does a pretty good job if you read the whole thing.

In regards to Huxley's specific views...this is difficult as he sometimes seemed unsure of what he meant himself! But this quote is one of several I have read that lead me to my own understanding of his position(though I will concede that I could be allowing for other definitions and terms like "ignosticism" to creep in):

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them." -Thomas Huxley

I understand what you are getting at here but my problem with this is a matter of WHY we don't know anything about the supernatural? We also don't know anything about anything about planets so large that they have no gravitational pull and only psionic 50 ft. apes can live on them. Is this due to a limitation on science's part? Is science not within it's jurisdiction to examine such a claim if it were made?
That is my problem with people trying to separate "supernatural" from "imaginary" in this way. The supernatural has every indication of being like the super-massive, non-gravitational, psionic ape-ruled planet and NONE of the criteria by which we define REAL, existent things.

The problem I submit is that you are presuming this "weak" quality to agnosticism. I am a strong agnostic(I am certain that IF God existed, none of us could possibly know of it) and a strong atheist(I know that some gods which are defined in logically inconsistent ways cannot possibly exist).

Correct. You are doing fine so far...

Again, correct. Keep this up and we will be seeing eye-to-eye in no time!

And here is where you begin to run into problems. I will use an analogy here to make a point:

Chip: "Today in school we were given a homework assignment to read a chapter about Communism. What is that?!"

Robert: "Communism is an ancient mystical belief that rainbows are made when unicorns trample four-leafed clovers."

Tim: "Yeah...it is pretty funny stuff. My dad was a Communist for several years until my mom made him get rid of all his 'unicorn-rainbow' crap or she was going to leave him."

James: "Guys...that is not what Communism is. Communism is a political system, like Capitalism only...

Robert: "You are introducing some new, alternative definition here and that is destructive to our discussion."

My contention is that your definitions are inaccurate(to various degrees) with regards to agnosticism, atheism etc. As I think T2 said above...

In any case if you want to contest what I as a strong atheist and/or strong agnostic say then you have to understand and allow ME to define this. You cannot let people who do not know or understand the terms well define me just because that is easier for you to 'knock down' ala the straw man fallacy.

Listen guy, no...I won't be re-defining myself to be someone who "believes there is no God" because you want to straw man me by linking me to your own degree of irrationality and faith via the word "belief". Context is the key here. If we were talking about morals or principles like liberty, justice, equality etc. then yes, you would be correct to say "Tony believes in these things and I *agree or disagree* with them for the following reasons...". I have no existential beliefs. I accept what is demonstrably true or at least very likely true to be so.

No but in THIS context(at the very least) belief is distinct from knowledge. I do not "believe in evolution" for example. I accept that all living things evolve and this leads to biodiversity. This is something demonstrably true. It is not at all akin to belief in God which has NO objective evidence for it being true.

No. Maoism can be BOTH. Buddhism is also an atheistic religion(for the most part). What I am saying is that Maoism is NOT an "atheistic tenet". Calling Maoism an "extreme of atheism" would be like calling racist plumbers an "extreme of plumbing".

?!
Nevermind. Moving on...

It is useless because what few people may legitimately be called an "Ultimate Atheist", like it or not, convenient for you or no, they amount to a few trolling teenagers on the net at best. Dawkins does not fit your classification. Sam Harris does not fit it. Christopher Hitchens does not fit it(though he probably comes closest when he describes himself as an "anti-theist"). It does nothing to further understanding of atheism or theism except to try and paint atheists who, for reasons of logic do not leave room for your God to hide in, as being "dogmatic" or "closed minded" or some such.

Debatable, but even if there are schools of philosophy that are based on atheism(as opposed to schools of thought which inevitably lead to atheism), calling such "sects" and "denominations" is not appropriate and a sloppy use of language. It is equivalent to someone like me saying types of sexual deviants(re: men who like young boys, men who like young girls, people into beastiality etc.) are like "religious sects" to make the case that religion is not really different than sexual deviance.

False analogy and you also seem to miss the problem that even if the NPA decreed such, that does not mean that "I should be paid more!" is a tenet of PLUMBING. See the difference?
For example, there is an organization called American Atheists, of which I am a member. If they were to hypothetically decree that "American Atheists is opposed to wasting one's life playing computer RPGs and collecting comic-books.", that does NOT become a tenet of atheism itself. I could and would allow my membership to expire but I would still be an atheist.

Yes, I do. Baldly asserting that I do not is no better than pplr insisting, contrary to all evidence, that I am "dodging" his points. Now if you disagree with my reasoning then fine show me where I have erred and I will be the first to concede such if your contention is valid.

OR they are indications that YOU do not understand the points I am making. For some reason you do not seem anxious to consider that...

And I still contend the above and still say that such cannot happen.

False. History has shown no such thing. Baldly asserting this over and over does not help you here. The bald assertion is a logical fallacy(re: an error in reasoning). You simply do not understand what atheism is. the word "atheism", without any prefix qualifiers(i.e. "strong") always denotes weak atheism since weak atheism is all that is entailed and common to all atheists.
So I will assume you are not saying that someone can develop an irrational, destructive "sect" rooted in lack of belief in God or gods.
I will conclude that you are trying to say that strong atheism is a different animal and that it is possible or even has happened, that someone could form a sect of irrational people rooted in the premise that "God does not exist" but even that makes little sense to me.

A rationalist does not equate popularity with credibility and perhaps this is our sticking point here. I am a rationalist. I do not care if 90% of the earth believes in alien visitations, I know these have not occurred and as a rationalist I also know that humans are uniquely prone to believing complete falsehoods in massive numbers. Ergo I use Occam's razor and conclude that most people are being fooled by their own pattern seeking psyche.

Okay, this may be the case. Thanks for clearing that up.

Why the extra 'F' in "IFF" above?

Anyway, I accept this...up until you insist that one arbitrarily chosen extraordinary claim is exempt because 'it may be discovered to affect our surroundings in the future'. More on this below...

I don't think I asked you what you seem to think I was asking you.

Rules of inference. A principle of scientific methodology that is often articulated as "Occam's Razor" or The Principle of Parsimony. For example, if I stumble and fall down my stairs, it COULD be evidence that I am clumsy or my balance is not good due to neuropathy. A certain type of 'believer' would say this COULD be evidence that I am cursed by a supernatural source. YOu might say it COULD be evidence of BOTH.
The first one CAN be rationally inferred but MAY not be true(i.e. I might not be clumsy or suffering from balance issues. My fall could be the result of a delayed reaction to medicine I am taking or some such). The second one CANNOT be rationally inferred by my falling because we have no rational grounds to suspect supernatural curses are real.

The 'free will' rationalization(in a subtly modified form)? So my own mother was being 'counterproductive' by making herself obvious to me? Only an "idiot" child will decide that his mother is or isn't worthy of love(or not so)?
Ignoring the obvious question of why an omni-max deity would have such mortal needs for attention that he would create mortals(as opposed to beings that were, like himself omni-wise and thus have no problem being free-willed and capable of seeing that God is deserving of worship) to love/worship/obey him?!

Yeah it would be IF he were somehow able to affect reality in a way that directly and conclusively inferred GOD. But if God, for whatever unfathomable reason, decides to only 'affect reality' in ways that are indistinguishable from him being imaginary then not so much.

 

That is a problem of most people being not well informed on the matter. This is not helped by people like you who propagate this silliness because it is an easier straw man to burn and is favorable to your egotism. What I mean is that the reason you guys want to hold onto the above sloppy linguistics is because it leaves room for your god of the gaps to hide in. That is the very reason I think I am getting the reaction I am getting here. It is not that you actually find my arguments irrational. Quite the contrary I am able to make a rational case that your God is logically impossible. If I were just some trolling teenager who could not make such a case then you would ignore my bald assertions and move on.

"Theory", defined as a "best guess" or even "wild speculation" is the most common usage of that term. But it is not the appropriate usage when discussing science(evolution etc.). Your above misconceptions do not make rational sense when examined but you want desperately to hold onto them for the same reason that an hypothetical anti-Christian might want to define Christian as "authoritarian", Satanism as "Liberated" and agnostic as "Liberated but still recognizing that complete freedom is dangerous and should be balanced by some authoritarianism".

Again, you are presupposing a dualistic nature where, if fundamentalism is one extreme then there must be an atheistic equivalent on the 'other side', but this is not true. Neither theism nor atheism can be "ultimate"(as per your term) or "extreme". Religions CAN be whether they be atheistic or theistic(we see this at times with Buddhists even).

False and somewhat irrelevant. Most Christians probably fit the mold(I think even you will agree) of the "blind faithful" who do not read or much understand the Bible themselves. Should I be wasting my time dealing only with those 'small fish' rather than Christians such as yourself who at least try to put together a rational case?
Also "strong atheist" does not mean "Ultimate atheist"(as per your definition).

It is difficult to pinpoint exact numbers since no survey has ever been put forth asking for distinction between 'strong/positive' and 'weak/negative' but we can rationally infer that most are the latter because weak atheism entails only lack of conviction, while strong atheism entails a certain degree of certitude with regards to supernatural gods at least. So just as we can rationally infer that most theists are not 'strong theists'(a position you yourself do not seem to advocate), we can also infer likewise for atheists. And there is also that pesky fact that if you do your own personal 'study' on the matter, even on the net where the number of strong atheists will be inflated for various reasons, we are strongly outnumbered. I think this is true even at these forums.

Again, I cannot scrutinize your anecdotes except to say that this sounds unlikely on it's face(unless you confine your communications to positive atheists or mostly draw out the strong type).

False. i showed the Judeo-Christian God to be so and baldly asserting that I have not is dishonest. A being cannot himself be omniscient AND have free will and your 'multiple time lines' speculation does nothing to solve this dilemma.

Yeah and your motivation for so desperately wanting to do so in regards to this question is highly suspect. I have given a detailed definitions that do not lead to ambiguity and unnecessary overlap but you do not want those. You want the murkier 'common usages' that stick to senseless definitions of agnosticism and such so as to make your case that anyone certain of particular gods'(re: the Christian God) nonexistence can be labeled an "ultimate atheist" and characterized as an irrational extremist ala religious fundamentalism.

False. We see NOTHING in existence which directly infers God or the supernatural at all. Therefore it is not a "strong claim" about reality. That is a rational inference. If you look into your bowl of soup and can find no 10-legged spiders within it then it is not a 'strong claim' that your soup has no ten-legged spiders in it. Also a "ten legged spider" is, like the term "supernatural" a senseless proposition.

"Claims" is inappropriate here and another example of those 'tactical linguistics' in action. There is nothing in reality, as per Occam's razor, that directly infers the supernatural so believing the positive(re: that the supernatural exists) IS a strong claim. acknowledging the lack thereof is not so. Remember that rational assessments of reality do not work the way you are advocating. We do not 'believe first' then set out to find the confirmatory evidence because that makes it impossible or at least highly unlikely for you to see a contrary truth if such is the case.

Keep in mind that "cannot" is not = "has not been".

False and more straw men. First we have to acknowledge the differentiation between extraordinary claims and ordinary claims. That is important and often overlooked by theists such as yourself. If you tell me of a pear tree that is, for whatever reason inaccessible to human perceptions then I will not say it absolutely does not exist. But if you tell me there is a talking pear tree with gossamer wings that is also not perceivable by man then we have a problem and I am not the one offering a "strong claim".

Secondly, sense contents are an important defining characteristic of existent things. Without such then even a hypothetical existent entity(that is also an extraordinary claim) is indistinguishable from an imaginary entity as I showed throughout this thread.

If you walked in on someone and he was masturbating but he told you that he was actually making love to his invisible, intangible girlfriend, then you will conclude he was masturbating. This would not be a "strong claim" on your part.

False dichotomy. I do not assume any "perfect state" but I DO recognize that things man can never reach, particularly in regards to extraordinary entities, are indistinguishable from the imaginary.

Again, this is not so. And the hypothetical extraordinary being who is of superior intellect and actively uses his powers to keep his existence hidden from lesser beings is, in effect non-existent.

I have been doing this long enough that I fully expect very few will agree with me. I am interested only in those capable of fully understanding the arguments either showing me where I have erred or agreeing with me.
And you are AGAIN shifting the burden of proof.

Couple fallacies here. An unqualified assertion of anonymous(nebulous "many failures") attempts to falsify certain God-claims and a version of the ad populum. Also I have and can prove that some gods are logically impossible. That you have to invent bizarre rationalizations that are equally inconsistent with reality only supports my position here.

Again, the ad populum is a logical fallacy. ALWAYS. Humans are perfectly capable of and all too frequently demonstrated to believe complete falsehoods in massive numbers. If you were raised by believers in genies who had an emotional investment and religious belief in such, in a region dominated by other 'genieists' on a planet earth that was mostly genieists, then you would be saying the same thing for genies right now.

As a rationalist I do not assign probabilities based on popularity of belief. When the 'alternative medicine' craze was at it's peak it did not become anymore likely than when there were few believing it. about 1/3rd or 1/4th of the country believes in 9-11 conspiracy theories and even more believe in JFK CTs. Neither of these are true or anymore likely than masonic CTs or the 'reptilian' conspiracy theories.

Ah but you DID get presents. That favorite suit of yours you did not actually own before Christmas. Santa figured you could use, not only a new suit but also the benefit of everyone you knew thinking you always had such nice clothes. His magical powers to affect our memories and perceptions for our own good is astounding!
You starting to see why the burden of proof is with the person asserting an extraordinary claim and not the converse?

You are betraying your dualism again... I am a strong atheist with regards to only those God-claims that are logically inconsistent and therefore CAN be proven so. To the rest I am a weak atheist or 'non-worship atheist'. Saying that no square shaped circles exist is not "extreme" or comparable to someone saying they DO.

And I will happily concede that I am wrong just as soon as someone is able to demonstrate this. That scientists may be working on such things is not relevant as to their degree of possibility. Scientists have also worked on Creationism to no avail and that to is impossible.

How so? Thus far all the alleged positive results have not been repeatable.

Appeal to anonymous authority. I cannot scrutinize an alleged study you cannot produce.

Only specific illogical God-concepts but yes I have. Until you can make a sensible case for how someone can KNOW with absolute certainty how an action he takes will unfold and yet be able to later ponder whether or not to take the action...my case is solid. The multiple time lines speculation does not help you here since if this God knows that in THIS 'timeline' 'X' will happen, he either cannot choose to do otherwise OR he thwarts his previous omniscience. What happens in these un-inferred other timelines is irrelevant since the same applies to those as well.

Only if you are a solipsist or some other radical branch of idealism.

No...I only have to understand the nature of fog and automobiles to say that no automobile can be constructed of fog.

Same applies to supernatural gods as well.

I am not at all a spelling & grammar Nazi but "credible" has no 'a' in it BTW. Which has nothing at all to do with your conclusions or arguments or how valid they are or are not. Just pointing it out.

Fairies have never been proven or disproven and themselves are not examinable by scientific method. Why? For the same reason that the supernatural in general cannot be: these are imaginary.
Science deals with the supernatural by dropping it in a bucket labeled "nonsense" and ignoring it. The supernatural does not exist for this reality in the same way that amphibians who can only survive within magma flows do not exist.

Repeatedly asserting baldly that I have "failed" does not make my arguments any less valid. You must first be able to understand them THEN demonstrate them to suffer from errors in reasoning.

Science assumes as an axiom that the supernatural does not exist because there is nothing warranting such an inference. As soon as someone discovers something that directly infers the supernatural then science will have to be re-invented to account for a new paradigm.

Oh the irony...

Time is like distance in this regard. Distance and time do not have an independent existence. They are concepts we use to measure things. the dimensions between points in regards to distance and the passing of events in regards to time. Time was not given birth with the big bang but time simply has no application as a concept in a reality where no matter is in motion and there are no sentient beings to observe such. Time passed before the big bang occurred(otherwise how could it have occurred?) in that whatever condensed matter the rapidly expanded into this universe(within an infinite macroverse most likely I think) was doing something for however long before the event finally happened.

I never said time was not REAL. I am saying it has no independent existence. You cannot capture time, slow it down, speed it up etc. The only thing that can possibly be done it to slow down or speed up the motion of material things in reality.

At best string theory and it's derivatives are looked at with hope and a "let's see what they come up with" approach from physicists. Many of them rightly point out that string theory is not even scientific because it ignores rules of inference. Any time you have to invent multiple dimensions to make your pretty math work, you are in trouble.

That last part is my main contention with your offerings here. You seek to establish "likelihood"(no 'y' in that BTW) by popularity and this is wrong.

This works well enough for ordinary claims about what a guy is eating at lunch. To make your analogy valid though we have to include a 'possibility' such as that the guy does not even actually eat those meals and that he is instead a carnivorous vampire who is eating humans remains disguised as Banquet meals. THAT is your "supernatural" and quite extraordinary claim. Where would you place THAT on your likelihood scale? If you are suing the arbitrary "popularity" criteria then what you are saying is that if most people, spurred on by popular movies(Underworld, Blade etc.) happens to be believers in vampires with extraordinary powers then it becomes more likely that the 'vampire' conclusion is valid over the rest.

The three ORDINARY explanations yes. As I said ordinary claims and explanations do not require more than ordinary evidence.

You are still not getting my point here. IF you arbitrarily accept ONE extraordinary claim based on evidence that you disregard as invalid for other, equally non-inferred extraordinary claims then you are being logically inconsistent. If you believe in God because you feel that extraordinary claim is very popular then you run into several problems. Namely that a number of irrational beliefs you do not accept as valid were at one time very popular beliefs. Were they anymore likely back when they were popular? Did wizards and witches almost certainly exist when not many doubted them?

False. That is not a straw man since I am not characterizing you as a believer in fairies and Santa, then knocking down THAT belief. I used an analogous comparison to illustrate some problems of logic in your arguments. You know full well that this is correct sir so please do not pretend the same degree of ignorance that pplr was exhibiting. You may not like my conclusions or even my mannerisms and that is fine but concede where I am right or you are dishonoring yourself here.

You are drifting into some weird and desperate criticisms here in these last few sir.

Funny.Unqualified assertion and irrelevant conclusion fallacies.

If materialism is not self-evident then what IS? And how do you establish such? How much more self-evident could a materialistic reality BE?!

Materialism is the axiom that matter/energy is the primary stuff of the universe and that things like 'thought' and such arise only as capacities and functions stemming from material existence. I would say that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and noting the subsequent change in your ability to think is good reason to conclude that thought arises as a function of a material brain. "No reason" is quite a huge, impossible to support position.

The energy/matter thing is a sort of 'chicken and egg' conundrum but not really Germaine to our discussion. It only shows how ideas and understandings evolve, not that these ideas are without merit.

So?! How does that change or invalidate my points? Scientists have a word for people(like J.Z.Knight) who try and hijack quantum physics to support supernatural claims: "Quarkpots".

Why are you asking me this? A God of the gaps argument?

 

Couple of points here:

1)Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence and is in fact very GOOD evidence of absence! What it is not is "proof" of absence. That is why most atheists simply LACK a positive belief in the existence of God.

2)Imaginary things are the only things we know of that CANNOT be proven true or false. I am only asserting that things which CAN be proven to not exist absolutely do not exist. Square shaped circles and omniscient yet free willed gods included.

3)The assertion that an omni-max deity does not exist only occurs in reaction to the assertion that one does exist. It is upon the claimant of such to both define the entity being claimed in a way that we can comprehend the matter and also to offer some sort of rational justification for saying such a thing exists. The default is not "maybe it does" for extraordinary claims, the default is "no, it does not" until such time as you are able to offer contrary evidence.
We do not live in an "anything is possible" reality so the positive and negative assertions are therefore NOT on equal footing adn entailing the same degree of "proof".

This is 100% false and leads to all sorts of nonsense. I assert that my own mother is not an extra-terrestrial vampire. Is this a faith-based conclusion every bit as irrational as the claim that she IS an alien vampire?

There is no "middle ground" here. You either HAVE a positive conviction that God exists or you lack such. Even IF you are, like most atheists not offering any assertion of certainty regarding such you are not in a "middle ground". You are an atheist(what is called a "weak atheist").
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge of God, not belief. The term has evolved considerably since Huxley coined the term. All agnostics by modern understanding are either theistic or atheistic.

That depends on the definition of "God". I am an agnostic and I say that the Christian God most certainly does not exist because the definition given by Christians is akin to a square shaped circle.

Omniscience is not a requirement for saying that some things are impossible.

I think I have quite handily refuted NOG's offerings here but I am fairly certain you will disagree but the real problem here is your illogical assumption that both sides are on equal footing.

Perhaps not(except in the sense that faith is a rationalization for believing that which is not rationally justified) but this is rather irrelevant.

The problem is not that we are unable to demonstrate our conclusions valid(or MY conclusions at least) but rather that you two or three are desperately reacting to someone effectively shining a light into the crevices where your god of the gaps is trying to hide. You are trying to in effect say our light is not really capable of such illumination and that we are no better off with our lanterns than you are with your blindfolds and darkness.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 39 seconds later... ----------

Money is not a contributor to violence. Greed is. Jealousy, love, pride etc. are emotions and we cannot get rid of emotions so that is a stupid comparison.
"Belief", when it comes to existential realities I all for getting rid of but this is probably almost as impossible as getting rid of emotions. We CAN however get rid of the MOST irrational and most harmful and unjustified beliefs(i.e. religions) and that would be a good thing. I do not think this likely though so my aim is to discourage religious belief amongst as many people with the intellectual capacity to do so as possible. The enlightenment happened once and it can happen again.

Exactly which is why no one is advocating such an absurdity.

 

I doubt it. I remain convinced that religion is brought about to answer the unanswerable. "Why am I here?" "What is the purpose of my existence?" "Why does <insert phenomenon that defies our current understanding of the universe here> happen?" Science will never answer my first two questions, and I firmly doubt that we will ever reach a point at which nothing in the universe mystifies us.

As such, I remain convinced that some people will always look for spiritual answers to mundane mysteries and that no matter how far we progress in our understanding of the universe in which we live, this "God" character is here to stay. Try as one might, there is no way to saddle this nebulous "God" character with a bunch of specific attributes that, if disproven, will disprove God. The "God" issue will simply never be put to rest since disproving one attribute or aspect of "God" will merely cause the definition to shift -- just as it did when we came to understand fire, lightning, earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, floods, racial equality, and the comedic stylings of Carrot Top -- to compensate for the new information.

When we know absolutely that we aren't alone in the universe, that the universe wasn't created for our benefit, many will simply begin believing in a non-humano-centric God. Hell, the Hindus already believe that we aren't alone in the universe, so their religious beliefs would be utterly unthreatened by proof.

 

Just stepping in here to remind that "the universe" does not necessarily = "existence itself". More below...

Not a rational conclusion. You cannot infer "design" via the simple fact of existence itself. Logically you would have to first cough up a "designer" known to build universes and then compare our universe to his works to determine if he is the designer of ours as well. Without any such designer you have no case for "design".

Many problems with this. Even recognizing that you are talking about the "Anthropic Principle" of the physical sciences and not the one offered by Creationists, you are still misapplying the probability argument retroactively.
An example I often use to illustrate why this is a problem is for someone to shuffle a deck of cards and then toss them into the air, taking note of each face up card and it's distance from each other card on the ground.
Now tell me what the odds are of achieving THAT specific result(regardless of what the result is)? Astronomically low. Your reasoning would then suggest that you did not actually shuffle and toss the cards randomly but instead you(or someone) must have intentionally placed them in that order on the ground.
Also characterizing the natural evolution of our universe as "random chance" is a bit wonky. Like combining a lit match and a can of gasoline and then saying "Wow! of all the possible reactions, a flaming inferno resulted! What are the odds?!

How "lucky" we are is a biased presupposition that our existence holds some innately better value than our non-existence. Objectively a universe where no intelligent life exists is not any more or less valuable, it's just that with intelligence comes the capacity to ponder our own existence. It is pretty certain from everything we know of reality that abstract thinking intelligence is a result of a ton of variables coming together but again, this does not infer "design", especially when you acknowledge that the other 99.99999(ad nauseum)% of the universe has no such life.

Circular reasoning in regards to the last one. You are presuming your conclusion within your premises. You cannot retroactively assign probabilities to such an event for reasons I demonstrate above. And we have no 'other universes' to compare with to say "Wow! A universe with abstractly intelligent life is so rare!".

No one is saying simply that "there's no proof so it must not be!". We are saying that things cannot be asserted in the first place(to then be subsequently rejected or accepted) without following rules of inference. For example, if you see that your car has a flat tire and a rusty nail sticking out of it, you cannot rationally infer "gremlins attacked my car because of some offense committed by my great grandfather!". That is effectively what you are doing with regards to God/a designer. The groundless assertion that God exists(or even "I believe God exists!") is no more valid or sensible than saying "Back to our my purple distinctly!". It is a nonsense statement.

Ah so you ARE advocating the Creationist nonsense. If I had a nickel for every time I had to debunk Dembski's nonsense about the probability of our natural universe arising I would be able to buy these forums right now.

 

Just so you know, I understand both you and pplr just fine (well, usually you) and pplr strikes me as much better reasoned and worded. That being said, I find little in your post that should really need my input, and a lot of irrationality. I think I'll stick with my previous decision now and stop talking to the wall.

 

I feel irony and deja vu all at the same time....

 

How shocking...

And just to be clear, I AM going to respond to pplr's posts as well(I don't tend to let ANYONE get away with nonsense). I just had to prioritize a bit.

I will take your above to be a typical 'Theist's concession' then.

 

If this is how you typically 'win' your arguements, some of your previous comments suddenly make more sense. Just to be clear, though, this is a rationalist's self-preservation, not a theist's concession. Don't bother reading if you don't want to understand. Don't bother responding if you don't want to change. If you want to know why I'm stopping, here goes. This is the end of it:

You said:

I linked and quoted this which quotes T. H. Huxley:

This is the definition of a neutral position, not supporting any claims of anything, either that gods exist or that they don't. Further quotes showed that Huxley created the term to express his own persistent ignorance on the topic (again, that he didn't know) and your Wiki link quotes him as saying:

From this we can clearly see that Huxley existed in a world where one was either a fervent believer in Christ and the Church (strong theist) or a fervent dis-believer in Christ and the Church (strong atheist), with the second being called the 'atheist' position, showing that it, in origin, only refers to the opposition of the existence of such a deity, not the ignorance of such. In this setting, when there was only strong belief or strong disbelief, where you were either with 'us' or against 'us' on both sides, Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' (from the Greek 'not knowing') to define his own position, a radical new position that said, "I don't know."

Therefore, it is clear to see that this is anything but a justification for atheism, and that Huxley himself was adamantly opposed to the position, just as he was to the position of theism. It also clearly demonstrates that there are three critical positions along the spectrum with ends at "Total belief in gods" and "Total disbelief in gods". Those three positions are the two extremes (theism and atheism) and the middle-ground of "I don't know" (agnosticism). Furthermore, you at once proclaim that agnostic atheism and weak atheism are completely different things and claim that agnosticism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods, and that weak atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Furthermore:

And yet it was I who first mentioned the position of Strong Agnosticism in this discussion.

Here's the reason you can't be both. Agnosticism isn't a position of 'if I believed they were possible, then..', but rather a position of 'I don't believe' or 'I believe we can't know'. By calling yourself a Strong Agnostic, you inherrantly recognize the possibility that gods exist. Since you claim to logically refute the supernatural, you can't believe that such things exist. And, as far as the so-called 'natural gods' go, that's a completely different term defining a completely different thing that has nothing to do with this conversation at all. You can't use their existence as justification for your 'agnosticism', because even there you aren't agnostic. You know that the sun exists and was worshiped.

To clarify, at this point we're discussing the definition of 'gods' as you used it and your 'natural gods'. Now, in that sense, I said that you had to use the definition that was being used in the conversation instead of slipping in a different definition. You presented an analogy where you claimed to be 'correcting' the definition, yet you also apparently accept that there are multiple correct definitions. A better analogy would be two people talking about the Beetles, their music, their band, the fact that they're from England, and you pop in and say, "Beetles are insects, not people. They don't make music!" Yes, there is a definition of 'beetle' that refers to 'insect', however that was not the definition being used and injecting that new definition into the conversation didn't 'correct' or clarify anything.

This is an increadible demonstration of not only bad logic, but also arrogance and more than a little paranoia. You attempt to link the term 'belief' with 'irrationality' and 'faith' at the same time. In fact, while it has a strong link to faith, it has no necessary link to irrationality. Again, the only definition of 'belief' that seems at all functional here is 'a proposition or claim accepted as true'. When accepted without evidence, it is linked with faith. When accepted with evidence, even inconclusive evidence, it is not linked with faith. Neither is linked with irrationality by anything more than coincidence (and believe me, the truely irrational have plenty of evidence to support their beliefs). You do have beliefs, you've even named and labeled them: naturalism and materialism, neither of which have any evidence or proof that they're true. You accept them without evidence, therefore we may even say that you believe in them through faith. Now, I may accept that there is no trace of irrationality here, provided that I also accept a somewhat limited education in advanced physics and cosmology on your part (not an insult, I'm just saying I know a lot more in these fields than most people). For the materialistic claim, at the least, there is conclusive proof that it is not true in advanced cosmology. If you still believe that claim, even knowing it's disproof, then you do so irrationally.

Here you seem to be merging three seperate 'conversations' into one. First off, I never claimed atheism had tenets. In fact, I specifically claimed it didn't have tenets, but rather had examples/sects/sub-philosophies which themselves had tenets. Secondly, this had nothing to do with the whole 'extreme of atheism' issue. Thirdly, however, related to that point, Maoism is much more like an extreme of atheism than a racist plumber is to an extreme of plumbing, because Maoism is entirely based on atheism and is itself a type of atheism, as you yourself admitted above. A racist plumber's racism, on the other hand, has nothing to do with plumbing at all. Lastly, the issue we were discussing here was that of examples of atheists taking radical measures, such as violence toward theists. You claimed it couldn't happen. I cited Maoism as one example of it happening. Things devolved from there.

Here, again, you at once deny our evidence and refuse to examine it. We've provided you an example of it, and several of us have claimed personal experiences with very adamant people of that exact belief, for me both rational and not rational. In fact, at one point, you said that you yourself fit the definition I gave of an "Ultimate Atheist". Unless you're admitting to being a trolling teenager on the net, this arguement is dead.

Dawkins admits the possibility of real, supernatural gods? So does Christopher Hitchens? If they deny such possibility, they are ultimate atheists

And again you present this strawman (and yes, this is a strawman, an attribution of an arguement to someone who never made it for the sole purpose of defeating it). There is nothing 'dogmatic' or 'closed minded' about the definition I gave. To be perfectly crystal clear, it was:

There is nothing 'dogmatic', 'closed-minded', or 'irrational' about that position. It can be held with dogmatic, closed-minded, and irrational fervor, but so can any position (even, apparently, agnosticism).

This is a perfect example of you're irrational use of terms. Even you, here, had to add 'religious' in front of 'sects' in your example, because otherwise it wouldn't have been problematic. In your own arguement, you as much as admit you're wrong, and yet you still cling to it.

Here, you:
1.) again make a claim of a logical fallacy when there is no trace of such,
2.) commit a strawman by attributing to me an arguement I never made and then attacking it,
3.) ignore the actual analogy I did make, which was to say it would be a tenet of a plumbing organization, not plumbing as a whole.
All this was an attempt on my part to get you to recognize that there are groups of atheism (groups founded on atheistic beliefs) who hold tenets and have dogmas.

Take note, however, of how you use the term 'atheism', because it'll come up to play next.

First off, this is where Maoism and Stalinism came into play. The footmen of these movements were atheists who oppressed and killed others for not being atheists. Secondly, you claim that I presented an error in reasoning, and then went on to explain it as an error in definitions. Thirdly, you yourself don't (and didn't immediately above) use atheism in that sense, but rather as a generalized catch-all for all positions of atheism we've defined. Unless, of course, you are claiming that leaving the American Atheists organization would radically transform you from being a 'strong atheist' to being a 'weak atheist'. Lastly, the way I used it, as a catch-all, is the way all generalized terms are used in any setting. When we say 'theists', we aren't refering only to the subset that doesn't believe in any particular gods. When we say 'scientists', we aren't refering to only those basic generalists who don't do any specialization at all. When we say 'musicians', we don't mean only that element that shares a basis with all sub-sets of musicians, but none of those subsets themselves. We use these terms as catch-alls.

For a refresher, the discussion was of Zeitgeist. I claimed that it was an irrational and extreme support of atheism. You claimed that it wasn't atheistic. It turned out we were talking about different parts of the movie, but you conceeded the point that the portion I was talking about was in blatant and direct support of atheism. You also admitted that it was a completely irrational and extreme film. By connecting these things, you admitted that there is such a thing as an irrational and extreme support of atheism.

First off, the claim that you're a 'rationalist' at this point is pretty weak. See above if you want to know why I've said that. Secondly, even a rationalist will consider the anecdotal evidence of the masses, just not weigh it much. As an example, if everyone on these boards claimed that Taluntain had won the lottery*, you would probably beleive it because, despite a lack of evidence, there are quite a few people who all agree completely on it, and the likelyhood of it happening, though rare, is real. If, on the other hand, I and only I said that Tal had won the lottery*, you wouldn't believe it, because only one person claimed it.

*Note: to my knowledge, Tal has never even played the lottery, much less won it. As far as I know, no one on these boards has ever claimed that he did win it. This was just an example.

Really? You asked it pretty clearly. This was immediately after our conversation on the 'real' and the 'imagined'. You then asked me by what criteria I claimed God is real. I had just defined the criteria by which I claimed anything is real. Apply that criteria to God and you get the answer to your own question.

Here is another example of your failed reasoning skills. This was the example of you falling down the stairs. You claim that believing it was a curse is irrational. This is entirely based, however, on assumptions. You assume that the supernatural doesn't exist, so you discount a claim based on it as 'irrational'. On the other hand, the idea that you may have a neurological disorder fit with your assumptions of the natural world, so it was 'rational'. What you discount is that logic is independant of it's assumptions. A logical arguement can be invalid if the logic doesn't work, whether the assumptions are true or not. Likewise, the logic is valid whether the assumptions are true or not. So, given an assumption that the supernatural is real, and that curses are real, the attribution of your fall to a curse is perfectly rational. Your arguement here only furthers the claim that you can't or won't think from your opponent's position, that you can't or won't recognize your assumptions as such and discard them to see things from your opponent's perspective.

And again your particular brand of paranoia (justified by past experiences or not) shines through, as well as illogical arguements. There are no boogeymen being presented here. In fact, the point being made was that you're position of Strong Atheism, what you are claiming we're 'propagating because it's an easier strawman', is what most people think of when they hear 'atheism'. You just called your own position a strawman that's easily burnt! The further rant about our vast conspiracy to deny your logic is just insulting.

And again you read into the text to such a degree that I swear you're halucinating. First, this had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Second, it is yet another strawman attack on my term 'ultimate atheist' (which I myself think is redundant as the term 'strong atheist' usually covers it) by trying to tie it with some nonexistant semantical attack on atheism.

Neither, though possibly the whole discussion is off-topic. Still, it's a bad and unjustified attack on my arguement, as well as a refusal to answer it (what you posted afterward didn't answer it any, either).

This is the most bald-faced case of circular reasoning I've ever seen. "I don't have statistics to prove that most atheists are weak atheists, but I know it. The distinction is X and from that we can rationally infer that the weak atheists are the more common." No, no, and no. There is nothing in here that tells us anything about how common either is and, from my knowledge of psychology, I'd guess that the reverse of your claim is true simply because most people like to cling to beliefs, and so would take the strong position automatically, without thinking about it.

Again, wrong on all points. One, most theists are strong theists (absolute belief of some kind, not a sort-of-I-think-so) by a large marjin. Two, I am most certainly a strong theist. I know that my God exists. Three, on these boards, those holding the 'uncertain' position are rather few, while there are several who are both strong theists and strong atheists.

Again, you apparently didn't even pay attention to that discussion. You tried to disprove the Judeo-Christian God, but could only do so based on an assumption of a singular time-line to which God Himself was limited (something not only refuted by most Christianity and Judaism, but also by cosmology). I'll completely agree that such a God could not be possible under such restrictions, but those restrictions are artificial based on your assumptions. This is almost, but not quite, a strawman, because you aren't doing it in an effort to attack it, but apparently just because you can't discard your assumptions.

This whole thing is one large illogical rant. The definitions you gave didn't clarify anything, as numerous posters have told you. The common usage definitions do. Neither has anything to do with the generalization of disbelief to all gods. And, lastly, again, my definition of 'ultimate atheist' has nothing to do with irrationality, extremism, or fundamentalism.

 

Similarly to the above. First, you simply reply to my claim with 'false', without justifying it. Second, there is no link between the term 'strong claim' and 'evidence'. A 'strong claim' is one that make concrete, reality-defining claims about something. This was clear from the context here and below. Lastly, the 'spider' analogy was, you're favorite, a false analogy. If I have a bowl of soup, and I'm looking for a spider, I can easily examine the bulk of that soup for that object with just my eyes. If I'm examining the universe, and I'm looking for an immaterial, supernatural force, I can't. Nor, even, can I do so with all scientific equipment available to humanity to date. I can barely even scratch the surface. It'd be more like looking into a warehouse complex, just from the front door, and claiming there are no spiders in there since you can't see any.

Here, you have a problem with 'claim'. I don't know why, since you never justify it. And, lastly, after again claiming to be a rationalist, and again presenting a strawman ('believe first'?), you ignore the point that both belief and disbelief are unsupported by evidence and so both would fit your arguement equally. Lastly, though, you miss the whole point of what I was saying: that both strong theism and strong atheism make claims that define reality a certain way.

... This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you claiming that science has previously examined something, but it can't do it any more?

Again, you love throwing out random fallacy claims. There was nothing 'strawman' about what I said. They were all things you have previously claimed, in quick succession, in fact. I simply added them together and showed the totality to you. Behind that, though, is a blindingly illogical sequence of sentences. Ordinary and extraordinary claims have nothing to do with this, a peartree that is inaccessible to human perception is itself an extraordinary claim (pretty much by definition), and the random throwing in of 'strong claim' at the end made no sense whatsoever. You say that you are 'not the one offering a strong claim'. Of course not. In the entire analogy you don't make any claims whatsoever.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Beyond that, though, neither your assertion that 'sense contents are an important defining characteristic of existent things' (ridiculous to particle physicists and quantum physicists, as well as most cosmologists) nor your implication that such is not true of God have anything to do with my analysis of your arguement.

Again, you seem to be just throwing out 'strong claim' at random. The 'you' in this analogy only makes one claim and it is both strong (a concrete claim about reality) and reasonable.

... Then it isn't a false dichotomy, is it? I swear, you don't even seem to know what these fallacies actually are.

There isn't even any logic here to disect and show the flaws in. You say something 'isn't so' when anthropology is rife with examples of it, so much so that anyone would recognize it as true. Then, you claim that a hypothetical thing doesn't exist when that thing (God in this case) is the entire thing we're debating the existence of.

By this logic, you seem to be claiming that it is by your will alone that we define what is 'possible' or 'impossible'. Many scientists work on it. Many investors contribute a great deal of money to such research. Research papers are published in professional journals concerning it. Well, it's all a waste of their time and money, because you don't believe it's possible.

Not repeatable. Thus the 'sporadic'.

I know, with absolute certainty, that if I fold the clothes, they will be folded. I am still perfectly capable of considering whether or not to do it, even given that knowledge. I hope that constitutes a sensible case.

The 'multiple timelines' is a strawman here. I never argued such. Instead, I argued an unfixed timeline, where a hypothetical god could play around with possibilities, see the results, and go back and change them. I also postulated a god beyond time, where there was no 'back and forth', but rather just a consideration of possible choices, analysis of the outcomes, and assessment of which to perform all done before any action is taken. For a simple analogy, think about cooking dinner. If you make fish, you will eat fish. If you make chicken, you will eat chicken. If you make pork, you will eat pork. All outcomes are known. The only thing left to do is to assign value criteria to chicken, fish, and pork to see which outcome you'd prefer. All of this is done, including consideration, before you get anything out to thaw.

Here, you ignore the vast majority of humanity. Not only are there substantial credible historical sources that describe gods, but people claim interactions with them all the time. Given the 6 billion people on the Earth, and the fact that the vast majority are religious, I'd say it's a safe bet that, at any given time, someone somewhere is having an experience that they will claim is an experience of a god.

This is a vast misunderstanding of science. Today, science drops the supernatural in a bucket labeled 'Cosmology/quantum physics dead-ends'. We have examined the universe right up to the beginning, but we can't pierce that, ever, at all. It is scientifically and mathematically impossible to do so from within this universe. Since 'nature', in the sense we're using it, describes the natural laws of the universe, everything outside of our universe, including it's source, is 'supernatural'.

I have. I did. You ignored it. See the above.

This is completely illogical and contradictory to your next statement. The finite measurements of time and space may be constructs of the human mind (such as feet, hours, etc.) but time and space themselves are not. No credible scientist will claim such. It also represents a lack of understanding about the Big Bang. It is a generally accepted precept of cosmology that time and space originated with the Big Bang. When you claim otherwise, you claim to know more than the entire field.

This is astounding. At once you refute your own claim about time, present a belief about an unproven existence, and recognize the possibility of the supernatural. Unfortunately, it also seems you do none of these things at the same time. How you do so, I cannot even begin to imagine.

Actually, you can slow down and speed up time. Einstein described how and we've confirmed so through experimentation. What's more, this is old news (by at least a decade).

At once you demonstrate that you don't know how science works and that you don't know what a rule of inference is. There are no set 'rules of inference'. M-Theory doesn't ignore rules of inference. Science doesn't rely on them. The only reason that M-Theory isn't a valid theory is because it isn't testable. On top of that, many levels of physics currently use multiple dimentions, and on pretty solid ground.

No, not at all. You misunderstood my entire arguement. Popularity is part of the 'evidence', not the 'likelihood'. Popular belief is a type of circumstantial evidence. It's weak, but real.

This entire 'analogy' only bears any resemblance to anything in this discussion in that you don't believe it. Beyond that, there is no connection whatsoever. The 'non-ordinary' claim that you would most likely equate with theism and the supernatural would be the claim that the stores around his house only sell Banquet meals. This is 'non-ordinary' and recognized as such in the arguement, yet the same logic applies to it. In fact, this logic 'works' with any claim of any type.

It's ordinary for all the stores in the viscinity to only sell Banquet frozen meals? To not have any alternatives? Not even bread, peanut butter, and jelly? No, that's not ordinary, that's an extraordinary claim, and the logic still works.

You missed the entire point of the 'inductive reasoning' arguement, didn't you? I just blew that whole arguement out of the water by showing that you were applying the wrong type of logic, and yet you repeat it.

Here, the way you put it, I don't even think you understand what 'self-evident' means. It means 'proves itself'. 2+2=4 is self-evident. Given the definitions of 2, 4, +, and =, it proves itself. Materialism is not. Materialism is something that requires proof. Materialism has even been disproven by Big Bang theory (which you apparently don't understand at all).

By that logic, smashing your TV and noting that the picture stops being shown is proof that the TV signal arises purely from the mechanism of the TV, not from any outside influence. The same can be applied to your computer and the Internet, or any of thousands of other examples.

1.) This is not a 'chicken and egg' thing at all. A 'chicken and egg' thing is a cycle of cause and effect (i.e. chickens hatch from eggs, but eggs are layed by chickens). There is no such coonundrum here. Moreover, we know which came first: energy. Matter then condensed from that.
2.) It doesn't just show how ideas change over time, but that this idea isn't self evidenct. 2+2=4 didn't evolve over time. It's symbology did, but people recognized that taking two of a thing and adding two more of it gave you four of that thing very early on.

This is completely illogical. I present scientific proof that there's more than the material and you claim it's 'hijacking science to support my claims'? Moreover, I wasn't even claiming the supernatural, just disproving the materialist claim.

*sigh* No. No 'god of the gaps' arguement. From the above, however, I can reasonably conclude that:
1.) You wouldn't believe me if I told you, and
2.) You probably wouldn't understand it and would instead attack it on nonsensical grounds.

I'm stoping here, as I think that's plenty. I haven't responded to all your posts, as that wasn't the intent at all. My intent was to provide you with concrete evidence that you are being illogical and, I think, by and large, I have. I may have descended into actually responding to you at times out of habit and, if so, I apologize, as that wasn't the purpose of this post and can only serve to confuse you more. I realize this probably won't help you any, since none of the other examples of your illogical and even self-contradicting arguements have phased you, but at least I can say I made an attemt. The only concession I'm making here is one that you will never see reason. You don't need to bother to respond to this unless it is to recognize some of my points, because I won't be debating any more with someone who can't reason.




To Everyone Else:
I deeply apologize for the nonsense and page-hogging that's gone on between Dr.Scepticus and I. It was unproductive, largely off-topic, and inconsiderate of us. I hope we haven't killed this discussion.

 

NOG, you lied. You lied in a very big and long winded way.

 

Hey, I reconsidered my decision, that's all! I may not be a woman, but I reserve the right to change my mind anyway. Scepticus's remark was so willfully ignorant and insulting that it just needed a response, and a thorough one. And anyway, I showed restraint. I easily could have done 3 posts, maybe even 4.

Back to the topic, though. By my reasoning, all realistic solutions to the origin of the universe end (or rather begin) with either an assumption of an unproven something or the single largest jackpot in the universe (literally), yet one of them must be true. To discount any one of them for lack of evidence is illogical. You may choose to believe whichever you want, but to claim that another is impossible, or even significantly less probable, without concrete evidence is faulty.

 

NOG - You Lie!!!!

Where is Joe Wilson when we need him?

You've done very well on this thread, NOG. A tip of the hat to you, sir!

 

Oh the arrogance. Right back at ya' buddy.

Okay I want you to try and listen to me, calmly for just a second here and without the assumption that I must be wrong.

Your error above is that you are still presupposing that "agnosticism" is a neutral position on the question of BELIEF. It is NOT. It is OUTSIDE of the whole "belief" issue altogether! Agnosticism is about knowledge. Ergo, one can be an agnostic AND an atheist(atheism is in regards to belief, not knowledge). Right within the portion of Huxley you quoted he says that a Christians would JUSTIFIABLY call him an atheist and infidel. So even Huxley was saying he was an agnostic atheist and this was LONG before the more modern understandings of these terms came about.

Huxley advocated what is now called strong agnosticism, a certainty that even IF such a God did exist, his existence would be irrelevant because we could not possibly know of it(in his own analysis). Like it or not that IS a justification of atheism for the same reason that my position that one cannot possibly make love to an invisible, intangible woman even if she DID somehow exist(in some "ether dimension" or some such) is justification for the conclusion that she does not exist FOR US(meaning those of us in THIS reality), regardless.
And again, take note of the fact that Huxley says the Christians would JUSTIFIABLY call him an atheist and infidel.

Again, for some reason you are not understanding this but "I don't know" is NOT an in between position on the question of belief. Fideists for example believe in God absolutely but they also "Do not know" and admit they have ZERO rational justification for such belief. I do not know of any tooth fairy and I am certain that such a thing does not exist. Imaginary things cannot BE known(directly). By YOUR re-definition of agnosticism, I would be both neutral AND a strong denier of the tooth fairy's existence and that is why I cannot give credence to your definitions.

False(I do not say what you attribute to me here). Agnosticism is a lack of KNOWLEDGE of GOD(not "gods"). One can be a weak agnostic AND a strong atheist(lack direct knowledge + certainty that (a) particular God(s) is/are logically impossible. One can be a strong agnostic and Strong atheist(certainty that if a transcendent God existed it would be unknowable to humans anyway and so is irrelevant + certainty that such a God does not exist), a weak agnostic and weak atheist(lack knowledge AND lack belief).

Even if that were true it is irrelevant. You yourself equated agnosticism with "weak atheism" when it is not so.

Bull$#!+ and a gross misunderstanding of the term. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with modern agnosticism but this would be contradicted by your acknowledging the "strong" and "weak" classifications(though perhaps you are just familiar with the terms but do not understand them well).

False. Being a strong agnostic entails the position that no one could possibly know of God's existence(even if he DID somehow exist, ala Sagan's Garage Dragon) and this does not preclude being a (weak)theist or atheist.

I don't believe such things exist.

*Sigh* When I brought up the "natural gods" it had nothing to do with agnosticism at all. It was to illustrate that there are different contexts and usages of "atheism". Rather than trying to tell sun-worshipers that the sun is not a god(what a useless argument that would be!) I simply point out that I do not grant willing worship to such natural gods.

This is a semantic mess you have gotten us into here so this will be the last time I comment on such.

I think you are reading into what I was saying and assuming a lot. I was not trying to put forth some absolute definition to apply universally, to all contexts necessarily. I am just saying that just as I do not like being re-defined by non-atheists in terms contrary to what I actually AM, I also grant the same respect to those who are theists but worship the sun, the moon, a divine emperor etc.

Treated as a god IS a god.

My arguments against supernatural deities are not applicable to Kim Jong Il or the sun(except for that worship is a bad idea and I do not do any worshiping of ANYTHING).

That is another false analogy with the additional problem that "Beatles"(note the spelling) ARE only defined as a musical group while "beetles"(again note the spelling) are insects. I have never done as you claim above.

I am the LAST person to engage in "paranoia guy. I suspect you are doing this as another straw man to justify not answering my points by dismissing me as "paranoid".

Not really but in THIS context the reason you are so adamantly dogmatic about making me a "believer" is to subtly put me on the same shaky ground you are on. No different than when Creationists say that scientists have "faith" in their theories. Otherwise why insist with such fervor that I have these "beliefs" if not to paint my certainties as being irrational and in effect "faithful" as any religious person's convictions? That is the only way your actions make any sense.

Granted but I have good reasons to not employ even that usage in these discussions and it is precisely because of the more common usages of "belief"(the ones linked to "faith" and such). I want to be clear about my positions so as to avoid having to give lengthy qualifiers for a term that can be quite confusing and ambiguous when NOT invoked in a specific way(the way religious believers would invoke such).

Correct but we must still acknowledge the distinction between acceptance(or knowledge) and "belief". It is a favorite religious tactic to, using the definitions you cite above, say or imply that scientists merely "believe in evolution"(as if there is not absolute confirmation that it occurs) for example and I want to avoid that confusion by separating "belief" from other, more useful terms.

Irrationality IS implied by your usage because in this context "belief" is NOT knowledge. It is something someone, whether tentatively or with great certainty, adheres to WITHOUT solid rational grounds. We do not say "That guy at the bus stop knows/accepts the CIA are using mind control rays to keep people in line.". We say he believes such.

False and this is patently dishonest on your part sir. These are axioms(often called "useful assumptions") just as Idealism and solipsism are axioms. The difference is that materialism/metaphysical naturalism ARE heavily evidenced. Blindfold yourself and trying walking towards the street and you will get heavy dozes of the evidence supporting materialism. Take a few blows to the head and try maintaining your normal degree of cognition and perception and you will see how "thought" stems from your physical brain. Like it or not this is all very good evidence of materialism. There is ZERO evidence to suggest the contrary(idealism, the supernatural etc.).

I do not have to "believe" in matter being the primary stuff of reality because regardless of what beliefs I could have adopted regarding matter, the evidence tells me this is so.

Perhaps instead of "evidence" you meant to say "proof"(not that that would change my positions but it would probably be a little bit more sensible)?

And here you betray your goals quite clearly. This tells us exactly why you so strongly insist that rationalists have "beliefs" just as you do.

There you go with those assumptions again...

Also what does cosmology have to do with the above points? How do my arguments betray a lack of cosmological understanding?

Funny. I am reading otherwise from a number of "advanced cosmologists" and astrophysicists right now. How do you arrive at the conclusion that methodological(or metaphysical) naturalism are dispr5oven by advanced cosmology?

Granted but what you ARE doing here is to try and characterize atheists you have a particular, person disdain for as being akin to the fundamentally religious when the evidence says otherwise and ARE trying to characterize strong atheism as having tenets in a roundabout way. Strong atheism has no tenets except that logically inconsistent gods cannot exist.

I did not admit any such thing and I would kindly ask you to not attribute positions to me which I do not hold. Maoism is NOT a "type of atheism" and your unqualified assertion that it is based "entirely on atheism" is laughable! If it were based entirely on "a lack of God belief then how would the totalitarianism, oppression, and goals to attain and maintain power even come into play?!
AGAIN, Maoism CAN BE a religion and can be(I would suspect almost always is) atheistic in that God worship(except for the deification of Mao) is not a part of it.

See?

 

No more so than a Maoist's killing of "dissidents" has anything to do with atheism. A plumber CAN though hold the belief that one should not put as much effort into fixing black people's sinks because 'they will always bust 'em up anyway and you will be called back out again...'.

I never claimed any such thing guy. You are reading too much into what I am saying. I know full well that atheists can do violence towards theists. I also know that it is possible for an atheist to do violence to a theist for no other reason than his being a theist. If there is something about my positions you are unsure of then just ask me man. It could be that in my rush to write my responses I was not clear on some issues but I think if this is the case then we are both guilty of that.

No, no, no...I have said I am a strong atheist. If you are using "Ultimate atheist" as merely a synonym for such then yes, I would fit your definition of such but then my question would be WHY on earth are you doing this?! And I believe the point I was making was that any atheist drawing a conclusion you don't like(re: not leaving a window of possibility open for your God to exist) can be arbitrarily re-defined by this prejudicial term you have invented.

No and no.

Ah! Took a while for you to admit what you were doing but I am glad we finally got that cleared up. No need to address anything that I or Dawkins or Hitchens has to say now. We are all just "ultimate atheists" anyway and therefore right up there with fundamentalists.

False. You are sloppily tossing the term "straw man" around and applying it willy-nilly where it is not appropriate.

Like it or not "deities" are not necessarily supernatural. I have never heard Dawkins or Hitchens or anyone else deny the existence of the sun or Gaius Caesar. But even if you limit the "gods" above to only supernatural gods I fail to see any use for your new term "ultimate atheist" other than as a means to portray Naturalists in an unfavorable light(and yes, we already have a term called "naturalists" so why not just use that instead of inventing this "Ultimate atheist" thing?). You seem to have jumped into this fracas with earnest zeal and are now trying to backpeddle away with much less zeal.

1)How is "sect" NOT religious in this context?! If there is some secular, non-religious usage of "sect" then I will admit I am u8nfamiliar with such but I suspect this would be true of pretty well everyone reading your definitions here so your usage of "sect" seems pretty obvious in it's intent.

2)Where ARE all of these "admissions" of my being wrong that you keep asserting(without qualifying them)?!

Okay I am going to re-post the relevant quotes that lead us to this:

Now what could possibly be the point of posting something I have already agreed with as if it were in contention with my own arguments?! I have ALWAYS said that atheists are capable of forming organizations, being irrational, etc. I have never contended such a thing so why even answer with the above bit about the NPA which could quite literally be a page taken from my own proverbial book!? The discussion we were having was whether atheism itself could be akin to an irrational religious movement or some such.

It is quite possible that I did not correctly identify your argument here but if so then you bear at least as much responsibility for this as I because there was nothing to be gained and a whole lot to be lost(clarity etc.) by answering one point I made by stating another point I made as if it were in contention with the previous point.

Not quite. Stalin and Mao wanted to kill anyone capable of rebelling. Anyone organized was a danger to what they wanted to do, be it a chess club, church or even potentially an atheistic organization because when people get together and talk amongst themselves, that is where the seeds of rebellion are sewn. Now it is quite possible that Mao and/or Stalin personally despised theists in particular but there is no evidence that this was the foundation of their megalomaniacal schemes and even if it were, THAT is NOT "atheistic". it is "anti-theistic" which is a very different thing.

False. I accused you of the bald assertion fallacy because you asserted that "History shows it can" without citing any examples of where this occurred. Anyone can give such an unqualified assertion about history to support any sort of argument. You seem to be having some difficulties in reading comprehension here.

You are not making any sense here at all. I think your reading comprehension skills are even worse than I suspected!

My use of the "American Atheists" analogy was, ironically making the same point you did with your "National Plumbers Association" analogy which is doubly confusing since you offered that in contention to the general points I was making about definitions of atheism, agnosticism etc. This has nothing at all to do with the fact that when someone identifies as an "atheist", sans qualifying that as a "strong" atheist, they should be considered "weak atheists" because of reasons I will lay out for you(AGAIN!) below, in response to your repeated misunderstandings of what I am telling you.

You are trying to pull a bait-and-switch here and taking things wildly out of context to try and support an impossible point.

Most atheists are weak atheists. How do we know this? Because ALL atheists have weak atheism in common. Even strong atheists like myself will defer to weak atheism when presented with gods that are not logically inconsistent but which we still have no reason to believe in.

But strong atheism is NOT shared by all weak atheists. Weak atheism entails only a lack of belief. Strong atheism entails both a lack of belief(in all gods, keeping in mind that "belief" changes definition when speaking of natural gods like the sun) AND a further absolute rejection of the possibility that SOME gods can exist.

That is how we know you are full of it when you say that Strong atheists are in the majority of atheists.

And again(because I apparently cannot repeat these points enough) this has NOTHING to do with the analogy of American Atheists deciding to come out against comic books and games and me then leaving them. If you ever looked into Ame4rican Atheists membership(and this applies to the Skeptics Society, Freedom From Religion etc. as well) you would know that strong atheists are a minority therein.

Yeah and...?! I mean what is your point here?!

It is an irrational and possibly "extreme"(I will leave that for people to determine themselves as I have no love for the film) support of a lot of things but WTF does this have to do with anything? Go back and read what lead up to this part of the discussion and the points you guys were trying to make when you introduced "Zeitgeist" into the discussion.

I think you have somehow embedded yourself into this conviction that I do not believe any atheists can do any wrong or some such nonsense. The ironic thing here is we probably mostly agree on these points you are NOW making but you are to hopped up on antagonism to see that.

It's not. Anymore than A racist plumber's racist comments are "plumbing". Anti-religious? Sure! "Anti-theist? Probably. Anti-skeptic and Conspiratorial? Absolutely!
Atheistic? Sorry but no. And keep in mind we are discussing ATHEISM here so when you drag something like Zeitgeist into the discussion it is no better than me dragging O.J. Simpson into a discussion about the merits/drawbacks of Christianity.

Do not put words in my mouth kiddo. If you cannot make your case then so be it. live with it and get over it but don't go making sh*t up.

I didn't "admit" that. I STATED IT before anyone else did! Your tactical linguistics are getting to be a bit much even for ME and I am probably tolerant to a fault of theistic shenanigans.

What...the fact that you have reading comprehension difficulties and cannot argue your way out of being run over with a garbage truck at the city dump means that I lose my rationalist credentials?!

Do tell.

False. Not in THIS context no we won't. The reason being you are trying to support an extraordinary claim with ordinary evidence and ignoring the fact that massive numbers of humans often(wayyy TOO often) believe in absolute falsehoods. Anecdotal evidence and the ad populum fallacy are NEVER good evidence and/or argument and especially not for extraordinary claims.

Don't believe me? Go hand out with the rationalists at the skeptics' forums, Internet Infidels or even belief-net.com(a religious site with an "atheism debate" forum section) and ask them how they feel about anecdotal evidence and the ad populum/appeal to numbers. This is an identified logical fallacy for a reason guy. Not a "logical fallacy except for when..." or some such.

1)The above is an ordinary claim. ordinary claims are supportable by ordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims are an entirely different animal.

2)Yes, I would tentatively accept that Tal had won the lottery if jsut you said so because, being an ordinary claim, there is no reason to be skeptical of such. people win the lottery every day and I have met at least a half dozen winners of state lotto drawings here in Washington myself(and I am talking only those who won at least a share of at least one million dollars).

Quit dancing around and dodging the question guy. Are you saying that God DOES affect our surroundings then and therefore he is real? What sort of direct inference can you apply here? In other words, what has occurred within our surroundings that pointed directly + to God and not to natural explanations that you are selectively re-interpreting as being done by God?

*Chuckle* You got busted there kiddo.

I don't just "assume" the supernatural does not exist. All observations and evidence even YOU can point to either contradict the existence of the supernatural or at least do not infer such. That is where metaphysical naturalism comes from. Now you are free to "assume" the supernatural, even without regards to rules of inference, all you want to. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. But doing so renders this conversation moot because we are dealing in to irreconcilable realities here(I am stuck in this shared reality we all, regardless of our "assumptions" must interact with and you are stuck in some...other reality).

Yeah but for some reason if you see your own house on fire, you will call OUR fire department rather than consult a book on occult curses. It is easy to talk about hypothetical assumptions you are or are not making but you conduct yourself as a Naturalist for every facet of your life save this silly rationalization for believing in mystical gods.

Agreed but two points of relevance here:

1)If you really ARE assuming something so contrary to Naturalist axioms then you could have saved a LOT of time and effort by saying so in the beginning so we could just ignore each other and get on with more important things.

2)Be consistent. If you are assuming that the supernatural is as real as the natural world we can observe and effect then instead of moving out of the way of oncoming traffic, try instead to mystically anti-curse a speeding truck or pray yourself out of harms way.

If you can't do that then you are just talking out of your arse.

Because you have no real position to think FROM! The conversation effectively ends as soon as someone falls back on assuming magical gobbledygook. What sort of reasoning can you offer from your supernaturalist axiom? What sort of rational conclusions can you draw from that?

By teh way, just so you know, "straw man" is two words. Not "strawman". That is about what I would expect from someone unfamiliar with these fallacies but...

Straw man(AGAIN!?).

You evidently know as little about psychology as you do about atheism and agnosticism.
I repeat:

Weak atheism = Lack of belief in (a) God.

Strong atheism = Lack of belief + certainty that SOME gods are logically impossible.

THAT is how we know that weak atheists are the majority of atheists. Strong atheism is not a "belief" at all so your above nonsense does not apply even if you were right about psychology(which you are not). Plus I would wager that I have spent a LOT more time talking to both theists and atheists both on the net and in real life. It has never been the case that strong atheists have outnumbered weak atheists anywhere I have been. This is not any sort of absolute proof that this applies globally but until I see something to the contrary I think it is a sound conclusion.

I will concede that I do not even know how applicable the "strong" and "weak" qualifiers ARE for theism(since in philosophy "weak" denotes a passive state and "strong" an active one, I am not sure how this could apply) and certainly have not conducted research into how many of each there might be. So if you say so then I will accept that. So far I seem to be the only one willing to concede any points here which does not say much for your own abilities.

Yes, you believe such. Who cares? How is this "strong"? Is it by asserting your belief as "knowledge" that it becomes strong when other theists are content to assert it as only belief?

That maybe. I have no dog in this fight so I am not interested in contesting it.

You know I communicate with cosmologists, physicists and other scientists fairly regularly. I am always amazed at how others try to hijack these sciences to support irrational theistic beliefs when most of these scientists themselves are atheists(at least the most "advanced" ones, i.e. the NAS scientists). But beyond that what exactly infers these multiple time-lines you speculate on? I think even you will admit that this is only speculation and you cannot substantiate such a claim so this brings me to my second point:

How on earth does this multiple time lines thing enable your God to escape the paradox I have illustrated here? I mean if he KNOWS with omniscient certainty that humans will exist in THIS time line then that does not change even if he could create multiple time lines. Either he KNOWS that we will exist HERE and therefore cannot ponder decisions to change this or he thwarts his omniscience.

Sadly I think you are too stubborn to grant this point but I make it for the benefit of others reading this mess.

Welcome to atheism then as I just thwarted your attempted refutation.

here is a bit of advice kiddo and I give you this free of charge: If you cannot make your case stick, then go back to the drawing board or concede such. But don't try to wriggle out by co-opting "numerous posters". Speak for YOU. if your argument is a good one then it will stand on it's own merit and I will happily concede such.
That may come as a shock to you since you are so Hell bent on assuming I am some dogmatic freak.

 

Rather OT here, but ...

@Dr. Skepticus, your frequent use of "guy" and "kiddo" is extremely distracting. Every time I encounter the use of them in your arguments I find myself no longer thinking about your arguments (which I am making a considerable effort to attempt to weigh) and instead thinking that you're attempting to marginalize your opponent rather than, or possibly in addition to, countering his arguments.

Please consider not using those terms.

 

If you spout a complete falsehood then what else I am supposed to say but that it is not true? References may not be your friend here but they do help to support such claims when you can give such.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say here.

Okay...but this does not change my point that NOT assuming that which is NOT evidenced is NOT a 'strong claim' about reality and does NOT share the burden of proof with someone who IS making a strong claim about reality.
You seem to be under the bizarre impression that science treats unevidenced extraordinary claims as "maybe real". For example, you nor I can prove that the tooth fairy does not exist but science "assumes" it does not and proceeds with it's examination of reality as if tooth fairies are falsehoods...imaginary things.

No it wasn't as you will see below.

Couple of issues here:

1)The POINT of the analogy has NOTHING AT ALL to do with what you are dragging out of context and stomping on above. The point was that the negative/dissenting position(re: There is no evidence warranting the claim that a ten legged spider lives in the soup bowl) does NOT stand on equal footing with the converse claim(that a ten legged spider DOES live in the soup).

2)If this alleged "immaterial force" CANNOT be found/evidenced then on what grounds can a 'strong claim' of it's existence be verified or falsified? How is it different than an imaginary thing?

Speaking of false analogies...
The above is false because one could easily conduct a search of a warehouse to verify or falsify the existence of a ten legged spider. But after they do so, cleaning out the entire warehouse and searching by all possible means at their disposal and find no evidence of any ten legged spiders, the person who continues to claim the spiders are in there is making a strong claim(as he was BEFORE the search was conducted) but those denying there are any ten legged spiders within are NOT making similar claims.

I have the same problem all other rationalists and I would bet even money most scientists have with your assertion: This silly, child-like notion that the burden of proof is on those making the negative assertion as on those making the positive. Someone dissenting from an extraordinary claim have NO burden of proof. Their position is justified by the positive claimant's inability to substantiate their claim.

One is a positive CLAIM and the other is simply rational dissent.

Learn what the straw man IS first before trying to toss it around willy nilly. It is two words. The fallacy occurs when one props up a 'dummy' position that is easier to 'knock down' than the actual position being offered. Google "logical fallacies" and you will get hundreds of sites describing them all for you.
YOU were advocating a "believe first" method of scientific examination where both the claimants and the skeptics share the burden of proof. Your contention is that methodological naturalism is no better than presuming the supernatural to exist and yet you still want to be seen as an advocate for science?! Science requires methodological naturalism in order to achieve ANYTHING. Google this term some time and see how many scientific articles you come across espousing this very principle.

What sort of evidence do you presume "disbelief" to require or be supported by? remember what happened last time you tried to disprove Santa Claus to me and fell flat on your face? Didn't that tell you anything about the burden of proof?!

BELIEF is what must be supported by evidence, not the reverse.

So does the position that square shaped circles are impossible. And like the 'asquarecircle-ist' position, strong atheism employs logic(specifically the law of non-contradiction) to make the case.

Not at all. Are you really having this much difficulty following what I am saying here?!

When someone(usually a supernaturalist and/or theist) says that , for example "God is beyond science's jurisdiction"(ala Gould's NOMA) this is quite different than saying science HAS NOT(yet) revealed 'X'.

My contention here is with those who baldly assert that some things are beyond the reach of science and CAN NOT be explored/revealed by science. I realize that YOU may not be saying such but I only offered a friendly reminder just to keep you honest.

How would YOU know?! I mean really guy....

False. Here is what you said and attributed to me:

"You also claim that science is a conceptual tool for the examination of things percievable by man. If something cannot be percieved by man, it cannot be examined by science, and therefore it cannot exist. That is the natural conclusion of the logic you presented. That you don't believe it, as you just said, only means you didn't follow the logic to it's natural conclusion."

THAT is a straw man since I never said what you are putting forth. It is an almost clever straw man so I will give you that, because your above presents a subtle distortion which paints a picture that I said something like "If we cannot (RIGHT NOW) examine it with science then it does not exist." which is false. What I WAS actually saying was in regards to the 'transcendentalist arguments that God is BEYOND the scope of science and can NEVER be revealed by such. If something can NEVER be revealed to exist rationally then it is no different than a non-existent thing for us.

Also you added in the "by man" qualifier which was pretty obvious and unnecessary.

1)No, kiddo, you are wrong about what an extraordinary claim is. An extraordinary claim MUST violate a known physical law or otherwise be of such inference that, if true, would require an almost complete revision of science altogether. Pear trees are common and when someone claims to have a pear tree(unless they are claiming to have on growing in a puddle of magma or some such) this is an ordinary claim. it can be supported by ordinary evidence(anecdotes etc.).

2)I am not the one who introduced "strong claim" to this discussion. Weren't YOU the one who did so and further went on to define the term as you used it? I asked you what you meant earlier by "strong claim" and you said that both the negative and the positive claims about the nature of reality were "strong claims".

You should at least go study these terms or ask me what they mean rather than assuming you can figure them out yourself and then embarrassing yourself as you did just now.

?!

And...?

Listen kiddo, I am going to be nice here and, contrary to what your posts are telling me, I will assume you have actually spoken with a scientist at some point and MAYBE even gotten these wonky notions from such. But my personal library is full to the freaking brim with books on science and philosophy. Everyone from Stenger to Ayer, from Shermer to Dawkins and Sagan to Einstein. Every one of them confirm what I have said here and you deny.
Now if you want to ignore or dismiss them all because they are all "atheists" then fine but you really have no rational leg to stand on here kiddo.

Now feel free to try and make a case for an existential entity NOT having sense contents but you are in for a long night I will warn you junior.

You do not appear to be analyzing my arguments at all. You go from callously dismissing them based on your own ignorance of science and philosophy to committing a plethora of logical fallacies while accusing me of the same.

Here is the analogy I put forth to make a point that went way over your head somehow:

"If you walked in on someone and he was masturbating but he told you that he was actually making love to his invisible, intangible girlfriend, then you will conclude he was masturbating. This would not be a "strong claim" on your part."

1)My putting "strong claim" in quotation marks denotes that I am not myself advocating this is a legitimate term, but am instead illustrating problems with your term as YOU have defined it and are trying to misapply it. I was making a point that dissent does NOT = making a claim("strong" or not).

2)The 'you' in that analogy is NOT making a "strong claim" about ANYTHING. He is rejecting an extraordinary claim by virtue of Occam's Razor.

The false dichotomy occurs when you(as you did) present a case that only TWO options exist(and often neither of them are good) when in fact there are more options. I pointed out at least one other option for you.

Anthropology is rife with examples of something that is STILL hidden, indeed not possible for us to examine(because it uses superior intellect to stay hidden) and yet we know it exists?! Do tell! Have you tried submitting your finding to a peer reviewed journal?1 This would be of monumental import to scientists everywhere!

Not at all and you are AGAIN offering a straw man. That one was so blatant I do not think you can wriggle away from it even in your own mind!

Omniscience as defined in the Bible, is the capability to know the future events with absolute certainty as the past AND that God knows EVERYTHING that has happened with absolute certainty. Not 90% sure. 100% certain!

Now taking your own analogy here and making it a correct analogy, if YOU knew with absolute certainty that you would fold the clothes, could YOU ponder a decision about whether to fold the clothes or not? Could you decide to NOT fold the clothes without thwarting your earlier 100% certainty that you would?

You keep trying to dodge this and you keep digging deeper and deeper.

Not a straw man at all. You were vague and your hypothetical could be imagined in a few different ways. A straw man would be if I employed some bizarre and easily knocked down argument that you did not even imply or hint at.
But regardless, let's take your newly clarified offering above and examine it.

Now in this hypothetical God could not be omniscient because he cannot KNOW that, for example I will trip over my shoes tomorrow morning since he has not yet decided whether he will cause me to do this or allow me to be so clumsy. He does not yet KNOW and so is not omniscient. if he DID know then he could not go back and change things without thwarting his own omniscience.

See?

On top of that, this is not how time works. Time cannot be traveled, re-arranged, shuffled about, rewound etc. It is a neat sci-fi/fantasy plot device that makes for some wonderful stories but it is not possible in reality.

Feel free to prove me wrong on this and I will offer my heartfelt apologies for doubting you here.

How? How can he do those things without time? If you "consider" this takes time. What does it even MEAN to take an action without the linear sequence to do so? Take a simple act such as throwing a baseball: This action is preceded by a relaxed arm holding a baseball, it begins with the arm being raised and the elbow constricted, followed by the propelling of the arm forward and then the release of the ball at some velocity towards it's target.

How would ANY of that be achieved without time? What would it even MEAN to say you threw the ball at all when there was no time for such to occur?

I realize you don't like me or my conclusions here guy but give me some credit here guy. I am not the idiot you presumed me to be.

They are not known and this is demonstrated by the word "if" above, until AFTER they have already been done. Once you have made fish THEN you will know with near certainty that you did in fact make fish. This is irrelevant to omniscience though. The very reason you are even able to p0nder these decisions is because you do NOT know what you had for dinner. if you KNEW that you had fish then there was no way you could decide to not have fish.

Name one. Also you are AGAIN offering ordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim and that will not wash here kiddo. I know too much about how science works to let that slide.

No doubt and if it is one thing we can say for certain and that anthropology and the behavioral sciences in general tell us it is that these people will do so even if they have had no such experience at all. When you next decide to brush up on psychology check out "pattern seeking", "confirmation bias" and so forth.

Funny that scientists seem to disagree with you. You seem to be advocating for 'quarkpotism' here. I cannot even find any scientists not affiliated with some religious or supernatural cult or some such who would agree with you here! This is the type of thing I hear from Ramtha cultists, 'ghost hunters' and the like but not actual scientists.

That depends on a lot of things such as how you define "this universe". If existence is actually multiversial where our universe is like a single bubble in a vast quantum foam of infinite similar bubbles then we may well be able to piece together how universes *pop* into and out of existence.

But maybe not. Does not affect me or my ideas in any way so I won't worry about it much.

That is a silly unqualified assertion. You might as well be saying "Anything outside of our universe is a jaguar that gets further away from you as it runs towards you!". It makes no sense.

No you have not. No you did not. No I have not. Quit lying.


Now I have to run but I will get to both your and pplr's posts hopefully tomorrow(already half through with pplr's posts but stopped to answer yours).