Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Thief]

Nice. No, it is not disbelief. It is a definite denial based on evidence or non-availability of it. Saying that a kettle revolves around the earth and I have not been there to search all around is a false argument. Who created and placed the kettle there - God?

and you need to be there to believe a tree makes a sound as it falls in the woods?

 

[Shad]

Blasphemer. You shall have lukewarm, muddy tea with soggy biscuits for all eternity. (Ok, the tea is really just a little earthy tasting..it's not really mud...but sometimes the biscuits are stale instead of soggy and then you'll be sorry!!)

You are sending him to England?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nice. No, it is not disbelief. It is a definite denial based on evidence or non-availability of it.

A denial is the same as disbelief.

OK, you've lost your keys. Where ya going to find them? In the last place you look, sure but you can't remember where and it's a big, big house. You don't disblieve in them just because you can't find them. Like me, you know they exist. But your friend comes over and you've asked them to help you search. They only have your word that these keys exist, n'est pas? To disbelieve you would also have to have faith.

You want to find the supernatural and yet you are natural. You want to find the metaphysical with merely the physical. You're blind and wonder why you just can't see God.

But I'll give you this: you have more faith than many theists. Even if you won't admit it. I'll have to admit, it's pretty funny that you can't see it. The mental gymnastics you're doing to deny it are worthy of at least a silver medal.

 

[prometheus11]

You are sending him to England?

HE DOUBTETH THE KETTLE!!

And he shall inhabit one of the marshy bits. Where fog makes things more of a hassle some mornings than others. Lo! And verily!

 

[prometheus11]

A denial is the same as disbelief.

OK, you've lost your keys. Where ya going to find them? In the last place you look, sure but you can't remember where and it's a big, big house. You don't disblieve in them just because you can't find them. Like me, you know they exist. But your friend comes over and you've asked them to help you search. They only have your word that these keys exist, n'est pas? To disbelieve you would also have to have faith.

You want to find the supernatural and yet you are natural. You want to find the metaphysical with merely the physical. You're blind and wonder why you just can't see God.

But I'll give you this: you have more faith than many theists. Even if you won't admit it. I'll have to admit, it's pretty funny that you can't see it. The mental gymnastics you're doing to deny it are worthy of at least a silver medal.

Everybody's blind but you. According to you. We get it.

 

[Gambit]

I feel tempted to ask you if your free will has a cause. For, if it does not have a causal chain that begins at the Universe's birth , then it contradicts your claim. If it does, then it is not free. Your call.

We were discussing why every thing that comes into existence has a cause, not free will. At any rate, free will does have a cause. It's called final causality (something which metaphysical naturalism specifically denies because it is not part of methodological naturalism).

And I believe I already showed you a very viable model of the Universe that did not come into existence. Not only viable, probably the only model compatible with modern science (i.e. Relativity).

I believe I have already explained to you that our first-person perspective provides irrefutable evidence that we are experiencing change.

But I think it is self evident that we cannot apply mechanisms valid within a context in a certain state to the whole context. That would be a typical instance of the composition fallacy. Properties of the elements of a set do not necessarily transfer to the whole set. A universe contaning only red balls, is not necessarily a red ball. It follows that if all things that begin to exist in the universe have a cause, that does not entail that the universe has a cause, even if it really began to exist.

What you call the universe is nothing more than an aggregation of contingent beings in which each contingent being is dependent on some other being(s) for its existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Blasphemer. You shall have lukewarm, muddy tea with soggy biscuits for all eternity. (Ok, the tea is really just a little earthy tasting..it's not really mud...but sometimes the biscuits are stale instead of soggy and then you'll be sorry!!)

Akettlists!

No, no. Have mercy. Don't spoil my tea. I love tea more than coffee (Indian shtyle - lot of milk, sugar, ginger and boiled till it is black, not the watery soapy tea that the rest of the world drinks. Ginger is good for winters, helps in cough. Some people like cardamom, some cinnamon. I do not like that).

 

[Aupmanyav]

and you need to be there to believe a tree makes a sound as it falls in the woods?

Not really. There is a direct evidence (Prataksha Pramana, pramana being evidence) and then there is inference (Anumana, based on and not going against reason). These two were accepted by Indian atomists of yore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika) and not hanky-panky (Shabda, evidence according to scriptures and sayings of holy men). A falling tree will make noise can be inferred by dropping a pencil on the floor. That is good enough proof.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A denial is the same as disbelief.

OK, you've lost your keys. Where ya going to find them? In the last place you look, sure but you can't remember where and it's a big, big house. You don't disblieve in them just because you can't find them. Like me, you know they exist. But your friend comes over and you've asked them to help you search. They only have your word that these keys exist, n'est pas? To disbelieve you would also have to have faith.

Denial: asserting that something is not true or real.
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as not true.

My friends also may consider if what I am telling them is true or that I may be playing a hoax with them. They will decide and act accordingly.

 

[HonestJoe]

What you're making here (albeit, unwittingly) is an argument for the intelligent design movement.

I hope you didn’t imagine I’d be horrified at that prospect and would reverse my position in blind panic? I’ve absolutely no issue with proponents of an intelligent designer presenting scientific hypotheses for that based upon observations of the universe they believe it created.

I’m objecting to statements that something definitely exists while at the same time claiming it’s impossible to prove or disprove. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re claiming certainty, you have to back that up with some form of proof (even if it wasn’t scientific) but if you’re claiming proof is impossible, you can’t assert certainty of its existence. You have faith that a specific god exists, just as millions of other people have faith that entirely different types of gods exist but we don’t (and possibly can’t) know whether any of these beings, or any kind of divine or creative intelligence, actually exist

 

[Scuba Pete]

Denial: asserting that something is not true or real.
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as not true.

​

In either case, in this most jejune quibbling over minor semantic differences, the words "not true" are used. Only the pseudo intellect would try to make a case that the two are not synonymous, hence the meme. Both denial and disbelief require faith that some concept, some thing or some one is not true. As an atheist, you actually believe that there is no evidence or subsequent proof. As a theist, I actually believe that the evidence and subsequent proof is obvious if you'll just look. Either way, we believe something. Let's consider a self centering ruler:

​

To the left is disbelief/denial, the center is I don't know/care and to the right is belief/acceptance. The higher the number, the more intractable you are that you are right (or left ). Notice that there are no negative numbers here: only integers. Ergo, we can call this a faith ruler. The more you believe or disbelieve, the more you accept or reject the God hypothesis, the greater faith you must enjoin to maintain that position. Only if your belief rests right on that zero can you claim to be without faith. On a scale of one to five, I'm probably a solid 0.5 on the right. I'm guessing you're a three or possibly even a four on the left. That's OK as faith is a good thing. There is nothing to be ashamed about. Here, as with most uncomfortable concepts, the truth will set you free.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am at -5, strong atheist, total rejection, have considered the problem and arrived at the conclusion that God/Gods/Goddesses are figments of peoples' imagination; have nothing against theists, all in my family and relations are theists.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not that I don't like it... it's just that you're delusional: just like Rush. Good job!

I've got to say, if you don't see the plethora of evidence supporting the ToE, you might be the "delusional" one.

 

[prometheus11]

It takes zero faith to reject the God hypothesis. Just like it takes zero faith to reject the Santa hypothesis.

What ridiculous crap.

 

[Thief]

Not really. There is a direct evidence (Prataksha Pramana, pramana being evidence) and then there is inference (Anumana, based on and not going against reason). These two were accepted by Indian atomists of yore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika) and not hanky-panky (Shabda, evidence according to scriptures and sayings of holy men). A falling tree will make noise can be inferred by dropping a pencil on the floor. That is good enough proof.

ok....I'm not sure of your terminology.....but...

science is fairly sure of atomic structure....
it then is fairly sure of dark energy and matter as they are inferred by this reality.....

and if the singularity is to move.....Someone had to snap His fingers

do you see any parallel?
at least that much

 

[leibowde84]

What relevance does this have to explaining the mystery of existence? Answer: None.

We aren't even close to being able to explain the mystery of existence. And, although it is vital that we keep trying to figure it out, settling on an answer prematurely (as in now) is a huge mistake, imho.

 

[Thief]

We aren't even close to being able to explain the mystery of existence. And, although it is vital that we keep trying to figure it out, settling on an answer prematurely (as in now) is a huge mistake, imho.

and a stance of ignorance bears nothing to me.

 

[Thief]

It takes zero faith to reject the God hypothesis. Just like it takes zero faith to reject the Santa hypothesis.

What ridiculous crap.

the above post ....most assuredly is...

 

[leibowde84]

and a stance of ignorance bears nothing to me.

It's not a "stance" of ignorance. It is an honest admission of ignorance. Certainly seems to be the most prudent, honest, and honorable one too.

 

[leibowde84]

the above post ....most assuredly is...

Pretty childish to criticize a post without explaining why you feel the way you do.