Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[Polymath257]

Yeah, I seeking to illustrate that sometimes genius leaps beyond the evidence at hand... apparently not as I thought with Einstein via thought experiments. Thanks for the correction.

Oh, Einstein did some brilliant thought experiments. But they were ultimately based on Maxwell's equations. That was the basic grounding in reality and evidence that made his subsequent ideas so valuable.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I was talking about your arguments.

When your response to someone asking how your religion is more credible to belief in fairies is to criticize their tone, this suggests that you don't actually have any reasons to give to rate your religion higher than belief in fairies.

I just want to point out that it was pretty obvious that the poster didn't believe fairies created the universe but I do believe the poster has a very sincere belief that God doesn't exist but the poster can no more prove God doesn't exist than I can prove that fairies didn't create the universe. I think there was a little bit of tone from both sides of the argument. Shouldn't be any need for either side to agree with the other to validate we feel what we feel.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Oh, Einstein did some brilliant thought experiments. But they were ultimately based on Maxwell's equations. That was the basic grounding in reality and evidence that made his subsequent ideas so valuable.

Since you are a math guy I'll throw this out for your comment...

Srinivasa Ramanujan - Wikipedia

A deeply religious Hindu,[10] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and stated that the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess. "An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."[11]

...point being the guy was brilliant, but kinda irrational?

 

[blü 2]

in a systematic investigation they do not need a clear idea of the person to eliminate other possibilities.

That can't be right, since "God" can only be a possibility if the concept "God" is the coherent concept of a real being, one that's not imaginary, one that has objective existence like your cat (I don't actually wish a dentist's bill on you). Otherwise any word that is meaningless, or denotes only something imaginary can be used "to eliminate other possibilities" ─ 'this patient is suffering from grofgrof', for example, or 'the murder was committed by a pixie'.

Your error is in saying well we don't know anything about the person so we cannot eliminate a natural cause of death.

Your error is thinking there's any coherent concept of a real person associated with the word "God". In fact only an imaginary entity, wholly unpersonlike, bald of real characteristics like a nervous system, a metabolism, sex, organs of sense, can be discerned, and to it are attributed wholly imaginary characteristics like omnipotence, omniscience, magic, or meaningless ones like 'perfection' and so on.

Cats are finite and the finite is dependent on the infinite

There are no known examples of 'the infinite' in reality. The infinite is only found in your imagination, and that includes the mathematical concept. though that at least is logically coherent.

If you think the infinite is from the finite then you are stuck with everything from nothing

As I said, there's nothing real that's either infinite or 'the infinite'. (As for everything from nothing, where do you imagine your imagined infinite came from?)

Don't sit here and say you need a definition of an Infinite Being in order to eliminate a natural cause for the universe and life here. You don't.

But the infinite being purely imaginary, I can and do instantly eliminate it from explanations of reality.

Is your existence unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you?

This conversation demonstrates my existence to you (and even if you think I'm a Turing machine, you think I'm a real Turing machine.)

Well, they are written as history, not stories. Events in space-time. The problem here is not with evidence because it is all abundant and clear to reasonable persons.

Evidence of what real thing, exactly?

Or to go back to the start, if we find a real suspect, what objective test will tell us whether [he/she/it/they/other] is
god / a god or not? And the answer is, because there's no coherent concept of a real god, there's no such test, and no such suspect.

 

[Polymath257]

Since you are a math guy I'll throw this out for your comment...

Srinivasa Ramanujan - Wikipedia

A deeply religious Hindu,[10] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and stated that the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess. "An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."[11]

...point being the guy was brilliant, but kinda irrational?

Ramanujan was definitely an anomaly. Brilliant, usually right, sometimes wrong, intuitive. People are still trying to decipher some of his stuff.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Ramanujan was definitely an anomaly. Brilliant, usually right, sometimes wrong, intuitive. People are still trying to decipher some of his stuff.

I think a lot of stuff goes on under the hood, I doubt we will ever be able to explain how the subconscious mind works or why.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well, sometimes a good dump after 50 is hard to explain.

You don't explain it, you just enjoy the feeling.

 

[JoshuaTree]

You don't explain it, you just enjoy the feeling.

Good rule of thumb for God, love, and dumps eh?

 

[Polymath257]

I think a lot of stuff goes on under the hood, I doubt we will ever be able to explain how the subconscious mind works or why.

I agree. There is actually a fairly extensive literature on what happens in the mind of a researcher in mathematics. Poincare wrote very eloquently about how he got an inspiration while stepping off a bus.

But this type of inspiration doesn't happen without extensive preparation. it is necessary to immerse oneself in a problem, playing with it and letting it get into the subconscious. Only then is it possible (and certainly not guaranteed) that a solution will 'bubble up'. I have had this happen a couple of times and it is a wild and wonderful feeling.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I agree. There is actually a fairly extensive literature on what happens in the mind of a researcher in mathematics. Poincare wrote very eloquently about how he got an inspiration while stepping off a bus.

But this type of inspiration doesn't happen without extensive preparation. it is necessary to immerse oneself in a problem, playing with it and letting it get into the subconscious. Only then is it possible (and certainly not guaranteed) that a solution will 'bubble up'. I have had this happen a couple of times and it is a wild and wonderful feeling.

A wild and wonderful feeling, exactly!

 

[dimmesdale]

That can't be right, since "God" can only be a possibility if the concept "God" is the coherent concept of a real being,

Garbage. That is ginned up. Pulled out of your backside have nothing to do with investigation.

one that's not imaginary, one that has objective existence like your cat (I don't actually wish a dentist's bill on you). Otherwise any word that is meaningless, or denotes only something imaginary can be used "to eliminate other possibilities" ─ 'this patient is suffering from grofgrof', for example, or 'the murder was committed by a pixie'.

This is all nonsense.

There are no known examples of 'the infinite' in reality.

It can be deduced logically. If ever nothing then always nothing. If something then always something. If something living then always something living.

The infinite is only found in your imagination, and that includes the mathematical concept. though that at least is logically coherent.

Then you are saying everything including all life here is from nothing.

But the infinite being purely imaginary,

Not imaginary.

I can and do instantly eliminate it from explanations of reality.

Well i explained that to you earlier but you did not get it. If we wish to make up imaginary then it would not require things from me...... There is next to no comprehension on your end so this is getting useless. Maybe some of this is beyond your skill set although i don't honestly know how it can be simplified any more.

This conversation demonstrates my existence to you (and even if you think I'm a Turing machine, you think I'm a real Turing machine.) Evidence of what real thing, exactly?

Your existence is unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you? Does that got you stumped?

Or to go back to the start, if we find a real suspect, what objective test will tell us whether [he/she/it/they/other] is
god / a god or not? And the answer is, because there's no coherent concept of a real god, there's no such test, and no such suspect.

Reality is in no way dependent on coherence. The problem here is not with the evidence. It never has been. If you do not wish for God to exist then falsify God. You can start with coming up with a better explanation than the Genesis account for the universe and life. Take some responsibility. Because everything from nothing is blind faith and contradictory and as far as i can see, critics have not explained one thing. Atheism explains not one thing about life. It is useless. If you don't have a solution or are unwilling to try then you are worthless and nobody pays for worthlessness or stuck on worthless. I just have to wonder who pays folks to do work here because all i am seeing here is worthless skill sets. Inability to follow a train of thought any child can tackle. The problem here is a dogmatic commitment to atheism (worthlessness) which will not be swayed by any amount of evidence or reason.

 

[dimmesdale]

That would depend on the evidence.

Where is the evidence for everything, including life from nothing? While you are at it perhaps you can provide all that mountains of evidence for the ape/human common ancestor mystery creature.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Good rule of thumb for God, love, and dumps eh?

Not sure what God has to do with anything, or has any rule of thumb.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Where is the evidence for everything, including life from nothing? While you are at it perhaps you can provide all that mountains of evidence for the ape/human common ancestor mystery creature.

Do you believe that life came from nothing? Or, that ape/humans do not have a common ancestors?

 

[viole]

Yes.

Again . . . To add: Not really cool, because it confirms your claim is based on a philosophical/theological assumption and not evidence.

Yes, but is that bad? I mean, do I really need evidence that fairies are not responsible for the birth of galaxies? Or that Mickey Mouse is not really the creator of black holes? Or that Superman is not manipulating our thoughts as we speak? Or that, etc. etc. etc.............?

What is important to see here is that the God theory (or Baha'i or whatever you believe in) is on par of all those claims involving garden fairies, Mickey Mouse, Superman, or any other creation of our fantasy. They have the same exact evidence and plausibility which is, clearly, zero. The fact that many believe more in Jesus than Superman, does not make Jesus magically more plausible, ceteris paribus.

It would be like thinking that believing that black cats bring disgrace (believed by many) is automatically more plausible than, say, believing that white swans bring luck (just made up).

And there is therefore no logical, objective or rational reason to raise one above the others. And it is even ridiculous to declare agnosticism about all of them.

So, please provide me with some hard evidence that Gods deserve more respect than fairies, and giant invisible universes creating turtles or whatever, or withdraw your claims that I was being sarcastic.

I was not sarcastic. I was just, in fact, being ecumenic, by showing the exact same amount of respect to all these forms of belief. Unlike you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but is that bad? I mean, do I really need evidence that fairies are not responsible for the birth of galaxies? Or that Mickey Mouse is not really the creator of black holes? Or that Superman is not manipulating our thoughts as we speak? Or that, etc. etc. etc....

You do not need any evidence to believe there are no God(s), but atheism requires a philosophical/theological assumption that there are no God(s), because there is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do not exist..........?

 

[viole]

You do not need any evidence to believe there are no God(s), but atheism requires a philosophical/theological assumption that there are no God(s), because there is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do not exist..........?

And? There is not verifiable evidence that all this is not the work of the Blue Fairy, either.

Should I be agnostic about that, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

And? There is not verifiable evidence that all this is not the work of the Blue Fairy, either.

Should I be agnostic about that, too?

Ciao

- viole

That is your choice.

 

[viole]

That is your choice.

Yes, I choose to be agnostic about the existence of the Blue Fairy and her creative act leading to the whole Universe.
Looks less ridiculous than being agnostic about Gods spawning themselves to get in a pseudo-suicide mission involving a weekend off for our sins.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

You do not need any evidence to believe there are no God(s), but atheism requires a philosophical/theological assumption that there are no God(s), because there is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do not exist..........?

Because there is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do [ ] exist, it's not much of an assumption that they don't.