Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: August 31 2010 at 15:52

This is exactly a point of contention among people who study complexity. Your example is one side of the argument. The other is that qualitatively different things occur with certain types of organization.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 31 2010 at 16:21

Negoba wrote:

This is exactly a point of contention among people who study complexity. Your example is one side of the argument. The other is that qualitatively different things occur with certain types of organization.

I'm not convinced that is a different side, but just an extrapolation of the same side (for example they are the same occurrence seen from different perspectives - like your small-windows analogy or the differences are part of a larger occurrence, like the elephant analogy) or just a failure to observe the actual mechanism that prompts the different thing from occurring that would mark them as being two totally isolated and different emergencies.

The bottom line, regardless of "sides", is that the emergent phenomena comes from the elements that make up the structure, not from any external influence - the phenomena is solely dependant upon the whole - this lends a degree of predictability to the phenomena - even chaotic behaviour is predictable because we can predict it will be chaotic (and be right).

What?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: August 31 2010 at 16:43

When I talk about emergence I'm not saying it implies a greater outside power, just the elegance of the existence we are immersed in.

Perhaps better understanding of systems in general will give us knowledge of even the most complex phenomena. I'm skeptical but I recognize that is not a very humanist stance.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: August 31 2010 at 18:12

Textbook wrote:

Oh for goodness' sake T, that's like the seventh time you've made some kind of Textbook related "joke".

THEY GET FUNNIER EVERY TIME I MUST SAY

Because your comments keep getting worse every time.... Wink

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: August 31 2010 at 18:14

Trademark wrote:

Yeah T, " come on, the "Textbook" thing is getting old... Is just making you look trollish..."
Hello Pot, my friends call me Kettle. Wink

I've done it like three times really, using textbook's name in lame jokes, but I actually made (or tried to) an actual point ("evidence" is not just scientific evidence) ... You invented a whole system of trolling with your "rules" and never even said anything else... Wink

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 31 2010 at 18:23

thellama73 wrote:

I've said this before, but I think I'll take one last stab at it. Atheists persist in saying that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. I think there is a great deal of evidence. In my opinion, the fact that a countless number of people throughout history have claimed to experience God directly is evidence. The fact that there is so much art, literature, poetry, architecture, and music dedicated to the idea is evidence. The fact that since the dawn of time man has believed in a higher power than himself is evidence.

All the art you have mentioned was produced by believers in the gods, not by the gods the people believed in, all it shows is that people believed in gods, not that the gods exist.

thellama73 wrote:

Now, this evidence is certainly not irrefutable, and it's not scientific in that you cannot reproduce it in a laboratory setting, but it is evidence nonetheless. You can come up with alternate explanations for everything I mentioned, but I can come up with alternate explanations for the evidence supporting gravity and evolution as well. That doesn't nullify it as evidence.

Well, I cannot actually come up with alternative explanations because none are needed - people made art of their beliefs that much is true and the only explanation needed. That is not evidence that the object of belief existed.

But since you've piqued my curiosity about the alternative explanations you can give for the evidence of Gravity, (since we've done Evolution before),

Alternative explanations for gravity are required for:

How apples get from branch to ground
How all the things on Earth that are not tied down don't fly off into space
Why the tides are synchronised with the moon
Why planets have elliptical orbits the around Sun
(and Why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun or fly-off into space)
Why planets, most moons and the Sun are spherical
Why some moons are not spherical
Why the asteroid belt is not a small planet
Why the escape velocity of a body on the Earth's surface is 11.2km/s
Why the escape velocity of a body on the Moon's surface is 2.5km/s
Why I weigh 95kg on Earth but would only weigh 15.7kg on the Moon
Why we have weather
Why time slows as you get further from Earth

(and answers such as "the Earth sucks" or claims of "Intelligent Falling" are not acceptable, use both sides of the paper, pocket calculators can be used.)

thellama73 wrote:

Now before Dean asks, I will add that yes, I think there is evidence for ghosts, vampires, bigfoots, Odin, Freya, Zeus, Vishnu, Santa Claus and fairies, but less so than for the idea of a god in general.

Your preemptive strike has missed a correlation I would have made - population sizes. There is a greater count of "evidence" of gods because more people have believed for longer. This greater population size in itself is another example of what you could claim as adding weight to the circumstantial evidence, but it does not - it is merely a measure of how many people believed the initial claim, not evidence that the claim was true.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 31 2010 at 18:54

Here I feel like I'm about to put my head in the lion's mouth, but nothing ventured, nothing gained - wish me luck chaps, I'm going in...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Textbook wrote:

TheLlama: I don't think you understand what the word evidence means.

I believe you are the one who doesn't understand what evidence means.

Evidence is simply any reason to believe a claim is true or not true, as a lawyer I can tell you there's also what is called CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence, and a the Old Testament can be considered at least circumstantial evidence, not a smoking gun, but evidence at the end.

It is evidence that people wrote some documents about some events that may or may not have happened, and wrote down some laws and regulations about how people should live. But it is not circumstantial evidence, more a character reference. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence, a gun that has never been fired is not evidence.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The New Testament is much more, because there is not only one, but four accepted Gospels and at least 3 Apocryphal Gospels that I have investigated and the coincidences between the four, would be accepted in a trial as corroborated evidence.

I suspect that this is evidence of collusion. None of the "statements" are fully eye-witness accounts (none of the writers were present for many of the events described) and they were written several years after the events portrayed when the writers had been together for long periods discussing and swaping anecdotal stories that they later pieced together in their own gospels.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Now, I have checked SCIENTIFIC evidence in some saints or miracles cases, and this could be accepted as determinant in any trial for each specific case.

Sorry, I'm not going to take your word for that. To date there has been no scientific evidence that supports supernatural events of any description, including miracles. I strongly doubt that what you have is evidence.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

So yes, we have evidence that indicates that the chances of God existing are very strong, now, the rest is faith.

Iván

No, what you have is evidence that people believed in the existence of god, not that he existed.

Edited by Dean - August 31 2010 at 18:55

What?

Chris S

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028

Posted: August 31 2010 at 19:15

^It is a shame that Thisism is all a mere mathematical coincidence

Thankfully I believe otherwise

<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 31 2010 at 19:35

What is Thisism? (Aside from a Lennonism)

What is "mere mathematical coincidence"?

How does that relate to anything I have discussed or raised?

Why is any of that "a shame"?

What?

Chris S

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028

Posted: August 31 2010 at 19:51

Dean wrote:

What is Thisism? (Aside from a Lennonism)

What is "mere mathematical coincidence"?

How does that relate to anything I have discussed or raised?

Why is any of that "a shame"?

Thisism is a pretty modern term I guess to define that all there is in terms existence is this. Granted I am playing on words a bit so spare me some lattitude. I have heard people use this term so I know I am not alone in using this.

The way I understand your discussions is that nothing proves God exists, therefore let's assume you are correct. Then how would you define the existence of Earth, bees, plankton, water, love, death, Uranus, asteroids, space. Do you think it is all a mathematical occurrence that has resulted in us/it,bees etc being here?

Apologies for the word " Shame". That is an old South African expression meaning such a " pity", not mean't to be derogatory, but don't you think it is a shame/pity if all your existence,the solar system, the galaxies, your wife, your kids and loved ones came down to just physics and maths?

Hope that clarifies

Edited by Chris S - August 31 2010 at 19:53

<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

jampa17

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802

Posted: August 31 2010 at 19:57

The T wrote:

Textbook wrote:

Oh for goodness' sake T, that's like the seventh time you've made some kind of Textbook related "joke".

THEY GET FUNNIER EVERY TIME I MUST SAY

Because your comments keep getting worse every time.... Wink

I know I said I won't comeback here but reading this stuff is priceless...

Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: August 31 2010 at 19:59

Dean wrote:

All the art you have mentioned was produced by believers in the gods, not by the gods the people believed in, all it shows is that people believed in gods, not that the gods exist.

Ah, but I think the fact that so many people believed something so strongly is in itself a form of evidence.

Dean wrote:

But since you've piqued my curiosity about the alternative explanations you can give for the evidence of Gravity, (since we've done Evolution before),

Alternative explanations for gravity are required for:

How apples get from branch to ground
How all the things on Earth that are not tied down don't fly off into space
Why the tides are synchronised with the moon
Why planets have elliptical orbits the around Sun
(and Why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun or fly-off into space)
Why planets, most moons and the Sun are spherical
Why some moons are not spherical
Why the asteroid belt is not a small planet
Why the escape velocity of a body on the Earth's surface is 11.2km/s
Why the escape velocity of a body on the Moon's surface is 2.5km/s
Why I weigh 95kg on Earth but would only weigh 15.7kg on the Moon
Why we have weather
Why time slows as you get further from Earth

(and answers such as "the Earth sucks" or claims of "Intelligent Falling" are not acceptable, use both sides of the paper, pocket calculators can be used.)

I never said it would be a good explanation. Tongue

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 31 2010 at 21:05

Dean wrote:

Here I feel like I'm about to put my head in the lion's mouth, but nothing ventured, nothing gained - wish me luck chaps, I'm going in...

Not in a chance Dean, an argument with different positions is interesting, you words are respectul, unlike other caes when another member replies with a laconic and disrespectful NONSENSES to our arguments.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Nonsense. Sure, you can call anything "evidence" -

And about that reply, Mike may debate with me about religion, but not about laws or rules of evidence

Dean wrote:

It is evidence that people wrote some documents about some events that may or may not have happened, and wrote down some laws and regulations about how people should live. But it is not circumstantial evidence, more a character reference. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence, a gun that has never been fired is not evidence.

Lets start from the beginning: A smoking gun is not only circumstantial evidence, if found in the hands of the suspect and the bullets match, it's a determinant evidence, that can be proved contrary with another equal and contrary evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is simply the a fact that normally means nothing, but in certain circumstances MAY imply another thing, for example a man running means nothing, but if found running from a crime scene, it may imply this person has something to hide and added to other circumstantial evidences, may lead to a guilty verdict.

Now, I clearly say that the Old Testament is not a smoking gun, but surely is circumstantial evidence because:

It's a text not written for fiction purpose
Some data can be verified
It's accepted by billions
It's accepted by three of the major religions

So even when not determinant, it has some proving value, if you want don't call it circumstantial evidence, we at least will call it "Prueba Indiciaria" (Don't know if there's a literal translation for this word in English doctrine, but an "Indiciaria" proof, is an evidence that doesn't prove without doubt, but gives reasons to suspect something is true)

Dean wrote:

I suspect that this is evidence of collusion. None of the "statements" are fully eye-witness accounts (none of the writers were present for many of the events described) and they were written several years after the events portrayed when the writers had been together for long periods discussing and swaping anecdotal stories that they later pieced together in their own gospels.

Mike, four different texts and several (non accepted by Christianity), which have so incredible coincidences can't be casual, even the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains the life of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah) in India.

Of course you can find a conspiracy anywhere, but we don't believe taht in this case is possible, atheists and members of differebnt religions have tried to declare the New Testament false, and still, nobody can..

This is evidence, here and anywhere

Dean wrote:

No, what you have is evidence that people believed in the existence of god, not that he existed.

If you ever checked a process of approving a miracle, you would be amazed, it seems as if the Church didn't wanted miracles,

Not only they send theor most capable invesigator to discredit the saint or the miracle (with unlimited expenses, but they use scientists, medical doctors physicists, etc, and most of them not even religion.

If something is approved afte this trial, it has to be real.

Iván,

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: August 31 2010 at 21:29

Dean wrote:

But since you've piqued my curiosity about the alternative explanations you can give for the evidence of Gravity, (since we've done Evolution before),

Flat Earthers actually have a fairly consistent alternative theory for gravity, and more interestingly light propagation and refraction.

Now these are obviously false, but the idea that they can get a fairly consistent alternative explanation is interesting. I recommend at least a cursory look at some of their stuff. I'm really heavily into Flat Earth myself, and I spend far too much time reading their literature.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: August 31 2010 at 21:31

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

I (...)

Mike (...)

You're seeing ghosts Ivan! LOL

Edited by The T - August 31 2010 at 21:31

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: August 31 2010 at 23:30

The T wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

I (...)

Mike (...)

You're seeing ghosts Ivan! LOL

Don't you believe calling an argument NONSENSE is at least aggressive?

Definition of NONSENSE

a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense

(2) : an instance of absurd action

That's why I replied Dean's correct post

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 01 2010 at 01:13

Negoba wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I'm not at a real keyboard now but emergent phenomena by definition cannot be understood by reduction to their simpler components.

Do we have to understand everything? It's entirely possible that one day we'll be able to create a conscious mind in a laboratory, from computer chips, and we still won't understand how exactly it works. This means that we don't understand everything, but that still doesn't lead to accepting any weird theory that there is no evidence for.

So you're agnostic then?

Sorry, but you can't make this generalization. I mean, you are making it, and you're not going to accept my arguments against it, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree. Believing that consciousness(es) exist does not automatically validate believing in any supernatural claim.

(See also the argument from ignorance)

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 01 2010 at 01:34

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Don't you believe calling an argument NONSENSE is at least aggressive?

Sure. But it's also honest. When I think that your argument is not making sense, I'll tell you - and if your response is that since you're a lawyer what you say about evidence trumps anything that I could say and therefore you will not discuss this with me - congratulations, now you are trying to establish some sort of authority that can define nonsense into wisdom. You could be the pope of evidence, and I still would call you on your nonsense.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 01 2010 at 01:40

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The T wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

I (...)

Mike (...)

You're seeing ghosts Ivan! LOL

Don't you believe calling an argument NONSENSE is at least aggressive?

Definition of NONSENSE

a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense

(2) : an instance of absurd action

That's why I replied Dean's correct post

Iván

What Teo is saying is that In the fourth paragraph of your reply you called me Mike.

What?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: September 01 2010 at 01:48

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

If you ever checked a process of approving a miracle, you would be amazed, it seems as if the Church didn't wanted miracles,

If something is approved afte this trial, it has to be real.

Iván,

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html

"They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block."

What they are essentially approving as miracles are phenomena that there is (currently, or rather: at the time of the examination) no rational explanation for. Sorry, but this is not convincing. Sometimes cancer goes into remission - for no apparent reason. That doesn't mean that the reason was "God", it could also mean that we don't yet know enough about cancer to explain why it went away in that particular case.

This is the good old argument from ignorance. Sure, they filter out many claims that are obviously bogus - but they are not positively confirming miracles.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 01 2010 at 03:54