Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[Willamena]

no one delivered a Mexican pizza to my door.
1.Mexican pizzas do not exist
2.the person who didn't deliver a Mexican pizza is responsible for my not knowing about Mexican pizzas

3. I didn't order a Mexican pizza.

 

[Curious George]

What? You are tangling yourself up in some kind of mental knot. How can anything exist before time? That is a contradiction in terms. LOL. Ok Georger, I'll leave it there.

No mental knots.

 

[LuisDantas]

That indicates a esthetical objection to the existing knowledge or proposed models. Fair enough. I am no expert, but I assume that such an ambitious undertaking as scientific models for the behavior of the universe entire are basically permanently subject to reevaluations and revisions as better data becomes available.

Still, the knowledge and the data are what they are. We do not have the choice of deciding what they should be just because.

Except that I don't see as a "just because" condition. I've no doubt but that all many will disagree, but to suspend reason just because observed data suggests something absurd makes no sense to me.

More like the other way around. You perceive it as making no reason because you have a hard time accepting it. I may well be missing something significant, but no obvious reason for such perception has been mentioned so far.


I don't know what exactly you mean by that. There is certainly a lot of evidence pointing out that people do, in fact, die, so why should we not accept that it is so? What reason to doubt the available facts would anyone have?

We're talking about the concept of oblivion? Yes people die, but since we know little or nothing concerning what happens when we die, we are left with what I see as two equally valid assumptions that can be made concerning what happens: either oblivion is indeed the case, or some conscious and intelligent aspect of us survives the event. Of the two, the idea that I think we are as eternal as I believe the universe to be. I have always accepted the fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed; that it can only change state. I happen to believe the same can be said for our 'selves'. In terms of probability, I think that more likely.

We know quite a lot about what happens after death: it leads to the irreversible decay of the body, for one. That some people hold beliefs of an afterlife of some sort should not cloud our realization of that.

I don't think we can talk about equal validity without at least rough similarity of evidence, which does not exist. You are proposing the existence of some sort of personal soul, and there is basically no evidence for that. If anything, it has been well disproven: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/a-ghost-in-the-machine/


I have a hunch that you are not talking about observable reality, despite this description being pretty noncontroversial a fit to this reality.

Why are you using the word "permanent" as a qualifier to universe here, by the way?

I believe (how can I describe this?)... in a compound universe; part of it steady state and eternal; this is what I mean by permanent. Within this permanent aspect of the universe I consider from scriptural extrapolation that there are pockets of space; isolated such that entropy exists within, but not without.

That is quite a measure of speculation to sustain from any scripture, IMO.


That is what Penguim asked, and what I ask now: how and why do you make the jump from having the belief that there may be a God (which is fair enough) to the claim that there must be greater intelligences (whatever exactly you mean by that) and a God?

Simple... I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. There exist in the universe and in this world, people who are smarter than me. On that continuum and at its pinnacle is God.

Are you defining God as "the highest intelligent in existence", then? Somehow I don't think that is exactly what you understand by God. Are you sure you are not using some previous assumption of the existence of a non-human, in some sense transcendental intelligence?


While I'm on the subject of my own 'smartness' I understand the logical fallacy aspect, but I'm sorry, to me, to say that someone is arguing from ignorance offers very little distinction from saying they are ignorant. I take umbrage at that because while I may not be the smartest person around, I do attempt to think things through based on all available information (both scientific and scriptural) in an attempt to come up with a correlation. Aside from that, I really dislike elitist attitudes.


I... just don't see why anyone would even attempt to use scripture to such ends that are IMO so patently beyond its purpose. Can that even hypothetically lead to anything but mistaken conclusions?

As for the argument from ignorance, you have at least twice now proposed that we should hope for the existence of a soul because we are not "sure" that there is none, even saying that it is roughly as likely as the alternative. That is a very straigthforward example of that fallacy.


From my perspective it just seems to come out of the blue with no justification outside the purely esthetical preference.

It constitutes a coupling, through the use of reason, of scientific information and scripture. I believe the two are reconcilable, and I attempt to do so.

Then it seems to me that you should accept the responsibility of how and to which degree to attempt to make the scripture reconciliable with the available information, against my better advice - and not to take it personally if (or should I just say when) it becomes impossible to do so.

Scripture is just not a proper tool for such an exercise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope mum is God to baby.

Gives nourishment, has control, more complex, loves, seemingly all knowing, was there before time began, immortal perfect being. If you can tell me why a baby's concept of mom is not = to God, I am listening.

Because I see no need to define God as 'anything that is higher up the pecking order than me'.
I understand that some do this, and I understand that some worship the mundane as a God. But my definition of God includes some aspect of superhumanity, and my concept of religion includes some aspect of mindful worship.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is where the OP needs to define the word, 'atheism'. This is precisely the problem with that word having more than one meaning.
anyways, are you saying, a statement that one disbelieves, or, an ambiguous uncertainty.

Both. I agree with you, though...atheism is such a broad term it can become pretty useless in certain situations.
But might be worth considering my post #202 for a little more insight into my thoughts, if'n you're interested.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

no one delivered a Mexican pizza to my door.
1.Mexican pizzas do not exist
2.the person who didn't deliver a Mexican pizza is responsible for my not knowing about Mexican pizzas

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
O how I wish he'd go away!
- by "I have no clue and no impetus to look up who"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

no one delivered a Mexican pizza to my door.
1.Mexican pizzas do not exist
2.the person who didn't deliver a Mexican pizza is responsible for my not knowing about Mexican pizzas

God is a pizza now? Hmmm...okay, I'm game. I'll give you fair warning, though, if we're going off on random tangents that make little sense, I am pretty well versed. Mwahahahaha.

SPICY PIZZA GOD - DAY 1

I sat silently watching my friend as he dialled the number.
'1 Mexican Pizza, large, with extra jalapenos and a bottle of Coke please...' he said before hanging up the phone.

'Dude, you never told them where you live...how are they going to find us?'

'I have faith, brother. We have need, and the pizza will provide.'

Suffice to say we went to sleep hungry.

SPICY PIZZA GOD - DAY 2

After rejecting my offer to call the pizza shop, I again watched my friend dial the pizza shop.
'1 Mexican Pizza, large, with extra jalapenos and a bottle of Coke please...to Apartment 3, Smith St.' he said before hanging up the phone.

'Better...', I say, thinking that perhaps now I will get some pizza. I place the phone back in the cradle, but am somewhat confused when I see the last dialled number on the screen.

'Dude...you called the hamburger joint. They don't do pizzas. The pizza shop number is...'

'Tut, tut, ye of little faith. All food joints are one. The differences we see between them is merely dust in our eyes, and not reality. I have rung the food joint, and the food joint will provide...'

Suffice to say we went to sleep hungry.

SPICY PIZZA GOD - DAY 3

I wait, but my friend makes no move to call the pizza shop, simply sitting on the couch, rather motionless.
'What are you doing?', I ask. 'Or more to the point, what are you NOT doing.'

'I have thought about this. There's no evidence of Mexican pizza. Therefore, I no longer believe in Mexican pizza.'

This is it, I think to myself. My friend has finally cracked. Not even bothering to remind him that it was his mother who first introduced us to the joys of jalapeno-infused pizza, I pick up the phone, dial the pizza shop, and order our pizza. Just 15 minutes later, I finally get to sink my teeth into a spicy Mexican, with a side of icy cold Coke.

'Praise the Lord...', my friend says, wolfing down his helping.

 

[Curious George]

Because I see no need to define God as 'anything that is higher up the pecking order than me'.
I understand that some do this, and I understand that some worship the mundane as a God. But my definition of God includes some aspect of superhumanity, and my concept of religion includes some aspect of mindful worship.

And mothers are super to the babies. I see no reason to include worship in the definition. For if God were objectively existent, then such an existence would not hinge on whether or not God was worshipped.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And mothers are super to the babies. I see no reason to include worship in the definition. For if God were objectively existent, then such an existence would not hinge on whether or not God was worshipped.

If God objectively existed, he wouldn't be my mother, regardless my opinion...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly! And this is my point. Time and space and hence existence per se commenced after the Big Bang. Therefore, there is no
possible sensible way to explain "what" banged, when or why. Human knowledge has built in uncertainty barriers at the cosmological AND the quantum extremes. We don't and can't
know what reality consists of or where it came from.

The Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of time.

AFAIC the Truth is found within the mystical or esoteric teachings extant in all religions, and most evidently in Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism.

Come again? It seems like you just made a giant leap.

Spare me from the shackles of myth and legend, but don't condemn me to
Science alone to figure out the truth.

There's a quote from Steven Novella that I think is relevant here:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

 

[Dhyana]

The Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of time.

According to Einstein it is

There's a quote from Steven Novella that I think is relevant here:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

I do not disagree. I'm just saying that there are built in barriers to where the human mind can go. It cannot go "before" the beginning of time (Big Bang). It cannot know the velocity and the position of an elementary particle simultaneously. Inside these boundaries, science and logic rule; myth, legend, faith are child's play.

 

[Shad]

According to Einstein it is

Physics has move well beyond Einstein. He had major issues with Quantum Physics which is are not an issue today. The Big Bang is

It cannot go "before" the beginning of time (Big Bang).

This because it is an incoherent statement. Before is a time reference. You can not have a time reference before time.

It cannot know the velocity and the position of an elementary particle simultaneously.

That is a limitation of measurement tools not the mind

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to Einstein it is

Baloney. Our understanding of physics breaks down at Planck Time.

I do not disagree. I'm just saying that there are built in barriers to where the human mind can go. It cannot go "before" the beginning of time (Big Bang). It cannot know the velocity and the position of an elementary particle simultaneously. Inside these boundaries, science and logic rule; myth, legend, faith are child's play.

I'm glad you've got all of science figured out. Let the government know - they'll be able to free up some grant money.

Here's the thing about human knowledge: yes, the fact that it has limits means that there's plenty of stuff that we know nothing about, but since all that stuff lies outside the limits of human knowledge, any human being who makes claims about this stuff is necessarily talking out of their butt.

 

[Dhyana]

Baloney. Our understanding of physics breaks down at Planck Time.

Here's the thing about human knowledge: yes, the fact that it has limits means that there's plenty of stuff that we know nothing about, but since all that stuff lies outside the limits of human knowledge, any human being who makes claims about this stuff is necessarily talking out of their butt.

I'm glad you've got all of human knowledge figured out. Let the multi-verse believers know - they think they're onto something.

 

[Dhyana]

Baloney. Our understanding of physics breaks down at Planck Time.
.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

-Stephen Hawking
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

-Stephen Hawking
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

That's right: "there's no way one could measure" does not equal "nothing happened".

 

[Dhyana]

That's right: "there's no way one could measure" does not equal "nothing happened".

That's right. But no way to determine. All theories equally speculative and unprovable

 

[Shad]

-Stephen Hawking
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Read the rest of the article rather than quote-mining. Hawking goes on to put forward another idea of time... He completely destroys the quote you posted with ideas he is explaining with the no-boundary hypothesis.

It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

Start from there and read.

 

[gnostic]

I'm glad you've got all of human knowledge figured out. Let the multi-verse believers know - they think they're onto something.

Except the problem with the multiverse advocates is that none of them can test their multiverse theories, empirically. The multiverse is still untestable.

Multiverse only work theoretically as mathematical models and equations. Until they are able to take the next step and find evidences to verify multiverse being possible, it is pretty much science fiction.

 

[Shad]

That's right. But no way to determine. All theories equally speculative and unprovable

Nope, theories are based on evidence and predictions which have been met. You confuse theoretical theories with all theories.