ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is a subjective way of looking at things based on a belief you hold. It's not evidence or reasoning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
No. Our discussion presupposes the reality of the material world we perceive.
We can play poker, or we can play bridge. Each has its own rules, and they work. Mix the rules of poker and bridge, though, and you'll get confusion, at best.
Last edited:
I edited the post beyond simply no, Please respond to the edited version with a good reference.
I understand fully.
Me, I like to look into the physical mechanisms underlying this 'everything'. The awe and wonder of it all is intoxicating, of course, but mechanism is also fascinating.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The sample size is massive. Astronomers have modeled the evolution of literally thousands of universes, putting the equations of General Relativity and particle physics onto computer and watching systems evolve at random, generating huge diversity of outcomes.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
This is a subjective way of looking at things based on a belief you hold. It's not evidence or reasoning.
Right back at you, as the young people say.
Speaking philosophy does not recognize the fact that Amo Penzias still rolls up his sleaves and recognizes Methodological Naturalism and the objectivity of falsification in his work as a scientist,
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Of course. The fact that there is order in the universe, and that order can be recognised and understood by conscious observers looking out at the universe from within, is truly awesome. Of course, the Greeks had a word for that underlying mysterious order or mechanism; they called it the Logos.
There is a thread about the Logos somewhere, to avoid hijacking this one.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
He was a working scientist, yes. And he felt that his work brought him closer, on both an intellectual and spiritual level, to God's creation. What's your point?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, it doesn't. You are not the master of this and neither am I. I just assume that the universe is epstemolgically fair in a mimimalistic sense. But not that it is materialistic or not.
You could have chosen a neutral version of ontological monism or even to forego any metaphysics/ontology.
So there are several assumptions possible and we don't have to assume a material world.
Not random. The result of the research showed a fractal relationship based on Chaos Theory for the possible diversity of universes. You cannot discount the fact that the scientist used the assumption of the fundamental objective nature of our existence to come up with these conclusions.
Careful assuming there is a huge diversity of outcomes is based on at present unknowns as to the possible hypothetical range of the universal constants, which may not vary all that much.
Bottom line is we have this universe to deal with with Methodological Naturalism, and not hypothetical other universes, which by the way may not be much different than ours,
He relied on the belief in Methodological Naturalism and the "objectivity" of his observations to reach his results.
Speaking philosophy does not recognize the fact that Amo Penzias still rolls up his sleaves and recognizes Methodological Naturalism and the objectivity of falsification in his work as a scientist,
His spiritual beliefs are his and not science. The work of scientist is from a diversity of spiritual perspectives, but remains consistent science over time.
Please respond to the edited version of post #815. The reasonable human ability to perceive the objective nature our reality is relevant
Last edited:
OK, but you have to choose which world you're discussing. There are different rules and assunptions.
Both English and Danish work, but mixing grammar or vocabulary leads to confusion.
As far as the assumption of the perception of a reasonable objective reality of our universe works very well in the knowledge of science based on Methodological Naturalism.
Anyone can make many diverse assumptions they want, but do they work?
Please present reasonable functional assumptions that work other than vague nebulous foggy philosophical views of reality that have no realistic applications. See post #815 and respond,
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but here is the test. We use different rules, then what happens?
What has actually happen?
Well, apparently we are still both here, so neither of us have violated the fundmentals of whatever reality is.
You reject the fundamental objective nature of reality from the human perspective, as far as I can see form your vague foggy, illusive view of reality you apparently believe we could not recognize any rules.
In your difficulty in recognizing what is "real" do you actually accept the we are all here?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yes, we have this universe to deal with, and one of the methods theoretical physicists use to explore it is by developing mathematical models which make predictions that can be tested by observation. And as Stephen Hawking noted, “The remarkable fact is that the values of [empirically validated] numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
This is fine, but totally contradicts your previous posts concerning the reasonable human perception differentiating the objective from the subjective. Respond to the edited post #815.
The above smells of the religious agenda of Intelligent Design, which has no relationship with science. The unethical use of probability and claim of fine tuning represent aspects of the unfalsifiable Intelligent Design. The "appearance of Fine Tuning" is subjective and not falsifiable.
In previous threads I have gone into great detail with references concerning the egregious flaws of Intelligent Design, and I will go through this again if necessary.
The problem of the unethical use of probability is described in the following reference"
Loading…
ramanujan.math.trinity.edu
TITLE: Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance
AUTHOR: Peter Olofsson Mathematics Department Trinity University One Trinity Place San Antonio, TX 78212 Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The explanatory filter is a proposed method to detect design in nature with the aim of refuting Darwinian evolution. The explanatory filter borrows its logical structure from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing but we argue that, when viewed within this context, the filter runs into serious trouble in any interesting biological application. Although the explanatory filter has been extensively criticized from many angles, we present the first rigorous criticism based on the theory of mathematical statistics. 1 Introduction A classic argument against Darwinian evolution used by creationists is that it is as likely as a tornado in a junkyard creating a Boeing 747. In recent years, the criticism has become more measured, coming not from young-earth creationists but from proponents of Intelligent Design.
5 Concluding Remarks
The explanatory filter may be logically sound but it is virtually impossible to apply. The criticism presented against Dembski’s application to the bacterial flagellum may be countered by pointing out that this is merely one example that is far from complete, which Dembski also readily acknowledges. In addition, he has no monopoly on the filter and there may be those who are more successful in applying it than Dembski himself. Regardless of any such objections, the application to the flagellum exemplifies the problems that will show up in any application to any even mildly complicated biological system. The first problem, how to describe a relevant rejection region seems, if at all possible, like a daunting task. Suggestions anyone? The second problem, unrealistic use of the uniform distribution, is at least possible to discuss. The probability of a biological system under assumptions of the uniform distribution might often be possible to compute, at least after some simplifying model assumptions. This probability will often be extremely small, and even though one could argue that the assumptions are deeply flawed to start with and that Dembski has no right to demand an alternative hypothesis, it is still the nature of scientists to assume the burden of proof. Biologists are interested in understanding the bacterial flagellum, and realize that it may pose huge challenges, irrespective of any criticism from the ID community. However, it is unreasonable to demand that the biologist be able to suggest a hypothesis that admits probability calculations. It is one thing to compute probabilities assuming unrealistic random assembly, quite another to compute probabilities based on realistic models of millions of years of evolution, reproduction, and natural selection.
In the words of prominent mathematical biologist Martin Nowak [10], “We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don’t have the information to make this calculation.” In a way, the ideas in The Design Inference and No Free Lunch are examples of an exaggerated belief in mathematical methods in the sciences. Mathematical methods are of course extremely useful, but not equally so in each scientific discipline. Theoretical physics, for example, would not exist without mathematics, but the situation is quite different in biology where systems and processes are much more complicated (from a mathematical point of view). Mathematics, probability, and statistics can be, and have been, very successfully applied in many fields of biology. However, there are also many obstacles and limitations and as we have seen, these are alarmingly present in attempted applications of the explanatory filter.
Last edited:
I consider this a biased narrow self definition of what atheism believes from and extreme perspective of one organization, It offers only the extreme view of atheism rejecting the range of what atheists believe from a more unbiased perspective. The problem also exists from the perspective fundamentalist Theist self definitions of what Theists believe excluding the diversity of alternate Theist beliefs.Well, yes.
In effect any claim to what objective reality is and not just a supernatural one has a psychological element of how to make sense of everything and how it matters.
I have posted it before, but here is an example of it for ontological materialism.
Qoute from site:
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."
Our Vision
We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.www.atheists.org
We have a "True Scotsman" fallacy in the working here.
Last edited:
First true statement you have made recently
Methodological Naturalism simply deals with the materialistic nature of our universe, and not the subjective possibilities of alternate existences.
Personally one may take this view, but it is not consistent and often contradictory from the human perspective.
True, again, but these other assumptions lack consistency and are often contradictory.
What other possible assumptions give a consistent working understanding of the nature of our existence?