Rectifying atheism, without science

[lewisnotmiller]

I make no claim, I have faith in God's nature, purpose- as the less probable explanation than: nature only, without purpose.

Which God, is my point.

 

[Milton Platt]

I make no claim, I have faith in God's nature, purpose- as the less probable explanation than: nature only, without purpose.

So you do not claim that a god exists, then?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you do not claim that a god exists, then?

I don't claim it can be proven, I think it's the best bet!

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't claim it can be proven, I think it's the best bet!

But you are by default claiming that a god exits, are you not? Why would you choose to believe in something that you do not believe exists?

As to most probable cause, I guess we just have different evidenciary requirements.

 

[McBell]

As to most probable caise, I guess we just have different evidenciary requirements.

I find this tobe the case more often than not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you are by default claiming that a god exits, are you not? Why would you choose to believe in something that you do not believe exists?

As to most probable cause, I guess we just have different evidenciary requirements.

It gets into semantics, but I think it's important to acknowledge our beliefs as such, faith, not a claim of fact.

Blind faith does not recognize itself..

on evidence;

If you see HELP spelled in rocks on a desert island beach, with zero evidence of anyone ever being there.

Do you suspect random action of the waves or intelligent agency?

i.e. we have no direct evidence either way, but we have other kinds of evidence to ponder, like probabilities/ powers of explanation

 

[Milton Platt]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Science at least has a workable hypothesis (mybe even a theory) about those things. Theism simply has an assertion with no explanation at all. Theism simply replaces one mystery with an even bigger one which in no way actually explains anything.
Atheism is not bound to or part of science. Atheism is not a claim, other than an acknowledgment that the atheist rejects the god claim.

 

[Milton Platt]

It gets into semantics, but I think it's important to acknowledge our beliefs as such, faith, not a claim of fact.

Blind faith does not recognize itself..

on evidence;

If you see HELP spelled in rocks on a desert island beach, with zero evidence of anyone ever being there.

Do you suspect random action of the waves or intelligent agency?

i.e. we have no direct evidence either way, but we have other kinds of evidence to ponder, like probabilities/ powers of explanation

If I see help spelled out on a rock I will asdume an English speaking human placed it there. I would not assume a god did it. I have direct evidence that humans can and do spell the word help on things. I have no equivalent evidence of a god doing anything.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If I see help spelled out on a rock I will asdume an English speaking human placed it there. I would not assume a god did it. I have direct evidence that humans can and do spell the word help on things. I have no equivalent evidence of a god doing anything.

Point being, even with zero evidence of people there, you still suspect creative agency, because of it's superior power of explanation over natural mechanism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

I find the inability of most theists to be cogent or clear to usually be sufficient evidence that theism is flawed.

 

[Milton Platt]

Point being, even with zero evidence of people there, you still suspect creative agency, because of it's superior power of explanation over natural mechanism.

Wrong...I do have evidence that humans can and do write the word help. Clear, direct evidence. First person evidence, in fact. Not the same as saying "I can't explain it therefore it is supernatural."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wrong...I do have evidence that humans can and do write the word help. Clear, direct evidence. First person evidence, in fact. Not the same as saying "I can't explain it therefore it is supernatural."

remember you have zero evidence of people ever being there, in fact it's guarded offshore. Yet you still chose creative agency over chance, why not the waves? we have evidence that they can place rocks also, in random positions, 'help' is no less improbable than any one particular random pattern of the same rocks, unless you think waves actively avoid spelling words?

 

[McBell]

remember you have zero evidence of people ever being there

Not true.
We have the word "help" spelled out in rocks.

 

[Milton Platt]

remember you have zero evidence of people ever being there, in fact it's guarded offshore. Yet you still chose creative agency over chance, why not the waves? we have evidence that they can place rocks also, in random positions, 'help' is no less improbable than any one particular random pattern of the same rocks, unless you think waves actively avoid spelling words?

remember you have zero evidence of people ever being there, in fact it's guarded offshore. Yet you still chose creative agency over chance, why not the waves? we have evidence that they can place rocks also, in random positions, 'help' is no less improbable than any one particular random pattern of the same rocks, unless you think waves actively avoid spelling words?

I also have zero evidence of a god being there. However I have evidence that people write help on things. I have zero evidence that gods write help on things.

You now changing the conditions by adding a guard does not strengthen your case for a god doing it.

Waves placing rocks in random position does not equate to waves writing words, so that does not even have a place in the conversation.

 

[McBell]

Waves placing rocks in random position does not equate to waves writing words, so that does not even have a place in the conversation.

Except that, regardless of how unlikely, it is possible the waves could spell out "help" in rocks.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I also have zero evidence of a god being there. However I have evidence that people write help on things. I have zero evidence that gods write help on things.

You now changing the conditions by adding a guard does not strengthen your case for a god doing it.

Waves placing rocks in random position does not equate to waves writing words, so that does not even have a place in the conversation.

the opposite actually, I was trying to strengthen the case for chance, but..

To be fair I think you may have misunderstood the question Milton- God is not part of this analogy.



Your choice is between the creative agency of a human being, or the natural mechanism of waves tumbling rocks.

given ZERO EVIDENCE of any people ever having set foot on the island, which would you think placed the rocks so that they appear to spell HELP?

Feel free to change the conditions any way you like, you tell me, how certain would you have to be, that no human could ever have arranged the rocks- before you would feel forced to default to a chance occurrence of waves.