Atheistic Double Standard?

[Polymath257]

That is what I have been saying, infinity only exist in the mind like a model. Try actually building what is infinite in your head.

OK. Now what? There is no *logical* contradiction involved in an infinite time into the past any more than there is for an infinite time into the future.

No, I look in the past at your number line only I see actual seconds, or events, causal loops, or states of things and conclude that if the universe used to be at a state infinitely far back it could ever reach the current one.

Exactly. But the universe was never in such a state infinitely far back. It has always been in a state finitely far back. But each state finitely far back came from a state slight earlier.

You don't prove universal negatives. I simply see no evidence for the possible existence of an actual infinite. This is why I did not ask you to prove that God does not exist.

OK, but you claimed there is a *logical* contradiction to an infinite time into the past. Have you given up that claim?

If so, that means we have to address the possibility of an infinite time into the past.

And, currently, there are two main options (duh): time that is only finite into the past and time that is infinite into the past.

The main arguments for a finite time derive from the BB model and general relativity. It is a fact that general relativity inevitably has singularities. For cosmology, those singularities limit the time coordinate to a finite value into the past.

The main counter-argument is that general relativity is known to be incomplete: it doesn't incorporate the known aspects of quantum mechanics. For a *long* time, we didn't know of any way to reconcile these two central ideas about the universe. Now we have several proposed quantum theories of gravity: string theory, quantum loop gravity, etc. But in *all* of these, the singularities of general relativity are 'smoothed out' and time does go infinitely far into the past.

So, at this point, we do not know if time is infinite into the past or not. And that is my point. It is *logically* and *observationally* possible for either to be the case.

Go to Google images and type in big bang model, every image I have ever seen has been 3 dimensional. Rejecting God and accepting a two dimensional universe is like swallowing a camel but choking on a gnat.

Huh? The BB model is a four dimensional model for spacetime. The images you have are simplifications to get the idea across. Most people don't deal with four dimensions very well, let alone curvature of four dimensions.

I didn't use the concept of subtraction or addition to prove that infinity doesn't exist, I used them to show that infinity produces incoherent results when applied to actual things.

No, you didn't. You just showed that infinity-infinity isn't a meaningful thing. That was your whole 'contradiction'. Yes, if you have an infinite number of things and take away three, you still have an infinite number of things. Yes, if you have an infinite number of things and you take away 10, you still have an infinite number of things. And yes, if you have an infinite number of things, it is possible to take away an infinite number of things and have an infinite number of things left over.

Where is the contradiction?

I could grant you this. Since infinity isn't anything it might not be contradictory. The lack of a thing is not a contradiction, it just doesn't exist.

You claimed logical contradictions. There are none.

You are not currently posting what I am responding to. It isn't going, it has went.

yes, I am responding to what you said. Yes, it has gone on for an infinite amount of time. Where is the contradiction?

Holy cow, they announced it in 2003. I have shoes older than that.

I'm sorry for your significant other? I'm not sure what the relevance was for that comment.

I have little confidence in theories that are younger than my car. I have not heard of BGVT being retracted by anyone or the BBT for that matter.

They have been *modified* by the new insights. But I agree, these new insights have not been *proven*. But the point is that they are *possible*. You claimed they are not even logically possible.

 

[Polymath257]

No, your responding to a claim about moral ontology with a response concerning moral epistemology. I use to warn non-theists not to make this mistake until I saw they did it anyway. Without God there are no goods to do and no evils to avoid, all that is left is preference. I did not say that atheist were immoral, I said they have no foundation for objective moral values and duties to begin with.

Priests do not ground objective moral values and duties either.

Yes, we do. We have human desires and emotions. We have morality based on human well-being. No deity is required.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The burden of proof is on the person making the existence claim. In this case, that means the theists.

If a scientist makes a claim that there is a new particle, it isn't the job of others to prove that particle does NOT exist. It is the job of the scientist to prove it *does*.

If someone claims that BigFoot exists, it is their role to prove such a creature exists, not the role of every one else to show it doesn't.

Agreed.

I generally add two more items to that. One only has a burden of proof if

[1] He wants to be believed
[2] He is dealing with somebody that uses evidence and sound argument to make decisions

Consider the creationist who is continually asking for evidence that he doesn't even look at. What burden of proof does one have with such a person?

And of course, there is no double standard there. It's my standard for myself and all others.

 

[1robin]

There is no evidence for any god since there is no evidence for anything except physical reality, and we've been explaining physical reality just fine for centuries now without invoking gods. Where do gods get a foot in the door?

The historical claims made by the bible, in philosophy, and in personal experience, etc........

Incidentally, if by "God" you mean Jehovah, you've got some issues with mutually exclusive traits and logical impossibility to contend with there.

Not until you demonstrate them.

Did you mean the multiverse? The multiverse has no less physical evidence for it than a god, but it has the merit of accounting for the fine tuning problem more parsimoniously than a god hypothesis. A multiverse need not be conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, or have a moral code. All it need do to fit the role as the source of our special appearing universe is to be able to generate nascent universes.

Did the multiverse potentially write a the most scrutinized book in human history? Did it send a being from outside our universe into it to die for our sins? Are there billions of people who claim to have experienced the multiverse? Then I guess they are not equivalent.

Special pleading. It also fired God as the cause of the universe.

Cause and effect only apply to things that begin to exist, by definition God has always existed and requires no cause.

Great. Then what do we need a god for?

For exactly what I said, as the uncaused first cause of all effects including ourselves and our universe.

The cosmological argument for a god has been refuted multiple times. Please refer to Google if that is a matter of any importance to you.

I know the history of the cosmological argument very well, it has survived at lest 3000 years of scrutiny to remain one of the most reliable arguments of any type.

It seems that whatever anybody does, you predicted it. It's likely that nobody knows what that is but you.

I have been talking about predicting 1 single thing, how do you get everything from one thing.

BTW you still doing that one thing I predicted, you just keep repackaging it. I will no longer respond to claims from you about other universes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To be honest I think many in this tread misunderstood the OP, and perhaps I could have worded it better. But the question is not what claim in general do atheist make that is unsubstantiated, but in general do they make claims that are unsubstantiated. And it certainly seems they do, which I consider something of a hypocritical position because of the common and often forceful demand for evidence of God.

After viewing atheist after atheist on these forums making baseless claim after baseless claim, I begin to question the hypocrisy of that position. If you are going to have such a forward and high demand for evidence of God then why not everything else? I was not talking about a specific claim, and if you read my posts you should be able to realize that, I was talking about a general behavior.

What you've described is more characteristic of the theist than the atheist. Here's an example from a theist on this thread:

"An actual natural infinite is impossible. Your simply assuming that the indeterminate half of the theories about how the quantum works are the ones that are true. Where is your evidence? "

Are you sure that it's not you with the double standard, one for atheists, who were singled out in the title of this thread, and another for theists who seem to get a walk from you.

Also, note that the OP makes an unsupported claim about atheists having a double standard. Atheists at times make unsupported claims, at other times, support their claims, sometimes ask other to support theirs, and sometimes don't.

You described that set of possibilities by mentioning only two of them: asking for evidence and making unsupported claims.

And yes, I have made an essentially unsupported claim in the first sentence of this post notwithstanding the quote in the second paragraph - an anecdote that doesn't establish the claim.

I don't believe that any unbeliever has asked you for evidence that atheists characteristically have a double standard, and I bet that you can guess why.

To the best of my recollection, they also didn't bother to ask you why you singled out atheists. You can probably guess why there as well.

 

[1robin]

For the third time. Hooray, you! You're the Dionne Warwick of our times.

Can I say "great job" even if I'm the only one but you praising your prowess?

Why are you posting to me 5 times in 40 minutes? I do not need praise, I need you to agree that point has been proven and drop it, so we can move on to the next.

 

[1robin]

Whatever. You were pushing the limits of my patience in the first place. I'm not really worried about the opinion of someone who can't even get "your" vs. "you're" correct about whether my knowledge of modal logic is up to his standard.

Edit: let me know when you want to talk about the actual substance of the argument.

So that is a big fat NO on describing what is meant by all possible worlds. The jury can be dismissed.

 

[1robin]

Did a Muslim tell you that?

No but I do think that it does have an Islamic source. But who cares?

 

[1robin]

Your world is small.

This size of the "world" is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[1robin]

The media doesn't have much respect for the church or clergy any more. I haven't seen a movie in years with a religious aspect that didn't include hypocrisy or some other moral failing until recently - Hacksaw Ridge.

The media credibility is at an all time low, but what the media thinks about anything is irrelevant. It also does not matter what Hollywood does with religion. Your condemning Christianity by complaining about everything but Christianity.

The last one before that was Deliver Us From Evil.

The most accurate movie I have seen about Christianity is "the passion of the Christ", but it isn't perfect, none of us ever are.

My wife is watching The Young Pope. I look up from time to time. The pope, who is rarely seen without a cigarette, and cardinals are mostly corrupt.

Catholicism has done as much damage to Christianity as it has done good.

That's how your culture at large perceives the church. Why do you suppose that is?

The population at large does not have one monolithic view concerning the Church.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK, but you claimed there is a *logical* contradiction to an infinite time into the past. Have you given up that claim?

If so, that means we have to address the possibility of an infinite time into the past.

And, currently, there are two main options (duh): time that is only finite into the past and time that is infinite into the past.

The main arguments for a finite time derive from the BB model and general relativity. It is a fact that general relativity inevitably has singularities. For cosmology, those singularities limit the time coordinate to a finite value into the past.

The main counter-argument is that general relativity is known to be incomplete: it doesn't incorporate the known aspects of quantum mechanics. For a *long* time, we didn't know of any way to reconcile these two central ideas about the universe. Now we have several proposed quantum theories of gravity: string theory, quantum loop gravity, etc. But in *all* of these, the singularities of general relativity are 'smoothed out' and time does go infinitely far into the past.

So, at this point, we do not know if time is infinite into the past or not. And that is my point. It is *logically* and *observationally* possible for either to be the case.

Another consideration is that because there is a realty rather than nothingness, it seems that either something has always existed into an infinite past whether that be a god, a multiverse, or this universe, or else something came into existence from nothingness uncaused - two conditions that have each been declared impossible by the same poster.

Unless there is another logical possibility that I have overlooked, one of those "impossibilities" is actually the case.

 

[ArtieE]

I know the history of the cosmological argument very well, it has survived at lest 3000 years of scrutiny to remain one of the most reliable arguments of any type.

The cosmological argument is of course a complete failure from the first line.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If the person using this argument can't show proof that whatever begins to exist has a cause the whole argument goes down the toilet.
Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The historical claims made by the bible, in philosophy, and in personal experience, etc........

The philosophical arguments for a god are all refuted, and the other two are evidence of the belief in a god, not of a god.

Did the multiverse potentially write a the most scrutinized book in human history? Did it send a being from outside our universe into it to die for our sins? Are there billions of people who claim to have experienced the multiverse? Then I guess they are not equivalent.

I didn't call the god and multiverse hypotheses equivalent. I said that the multiverse hypothesis was superior because it had the merit of being more parsimonious.

Cause and effect only apply to things that begin to exist, by definition God has always existed and requires no cause.

That's your definition, not mine.

I believe that it was also you that claimed that a god was necessary as opposed to contingent by definition.

Your claim about causality has already been refuted. Most recently, Polymath described quantum indeterminacy to you.

I know the history of the cosmological argument very well, it has survived at lest 3000 years of scrutiny to remain one of the most reliable arguments of any type.

As already noted, that argument has also been refuted, most recently on this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

The cosmological argument is of course a complete failure from the first line.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If the person using this argument can't show proof that whatever begins to exist has a cause the whole argument goes down the toilet.
Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise

Both 1 and 2 are deeply problematic.

Even if time is finite into the past (which is far from being proved), it does NOT show that the universe 'began to exist'. In fact, 'beginning to exist' requires a time before the existence, which is precisely denied by general relativity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The media credibility is at an all time low, but what the media thinks about anything is irrelevant. It also does not matter what Hollywood does with religion. Your condemning Christianity by complaining about everything but Christianity.

It's not about media credibility. The media are a reflection of cultural attitudes.

Once upon a time not long ago, the family pastor or priest was always depicted as a man of character, knowledge, and gravitas, because that was how most people imagined them to be. Today, we have a different view of the clergy, one reflected in entertainment media.

The most accurate movie I have seen about Christianity is "the passion of the Christ", but it isn't perfect, none of us ever are.

It's not about accuracy, either. My point was about how rarely the church and clergy are depicted positively.

Catholicism has done as much damage to Christianity as it has done good.

You're being too generous.

The population at large does not have one monolithic view concerning the Church.

Not relevant, nor the claim.

It's not necessary for every America to like hamburgers for it to be correct to say that Americans like hamburgers. It may also be possible to say if they like them more or less than fifty years ago.

Likewise, the culture at large and its dominant values and beliefs can be described including how it perceives the church and how that perception has been trending.

 

[syo]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

non believers don't know what a religion teaches and they have an opinion on that religion. go figure.

 

[1robin]

Since you mention William Lane Craig here is what RationalWiki has to say about him and his arguments. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

That site is huge. It would take me 30 minutes to read and I would have no idea which part your referring to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Unless an atheist is asserting that there is no god, no claim is actually being made. The atheism I practice is the rejection of the claim that some god exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not need praise, I need you to agree that point has been proven and drop it, so we can move on to the next.

What point do you think you have proven, and how have you proven it? I've seen you claim a few times that a post you were responding to proved your point, but I can no longer remember what it was.

Incidentally, proof is that which convinces, meaning that you have to prove something to somebody else to have proven anything. Proof is an interaction - a cooperative effort.

Writing out an argument that you already accept is not proving anything to yourself, and if nobody is convinced by your argument, you have proven nothing. You merely made an unconvincing case for something.

 

[Furball]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

This is a bizarre statement. The atheist's that I have encountered have done nothing but provide hard evidence for their beliefs. Read sam harris or any # of john loftus' books or even marshall brains "how god works." They provide nothing but hard evidence through and through. The atheist should not have to provide any evidence anyway. They are not the ones knocking on people's doors or screaming like lunatics in the streets how "their" god exists and that were all depraved sinners who need saving. All the burden of proof lies on the person claiming a positive instead of a negative.