|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2004 : 15:17:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Inference driven by the question: How is it that there is something rather than nothing?
But how does that follow with the answer, "because there is a god that made it so"?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Why should we entertain such a question? You're a practical gal, you're grounded in science. Eliminating consideration of the fact that religion and religious beliefs exist should be anathema to you.
The point I am trying to make here is my premise on testing the god theory presumes human religion and human belief in god(s) is the basis of god. Both of you seem to be saying if there were no religious texts nor religions ever in the history of mankind, you would still consider a god possible. And I don't think that is valid.
In other words, I think your premise that there can be a god is based solely your learning about god from the human history of imagining that gods existed. You can take the concept that god originated either from truly existing or god originated from human imagination and test where the original concept of god began. If it was more likely than not based strictly on imagination and not on any thing else, then you have evidence there is no god.
It comes back to what I said at the beginning quote:
Suppose you take the position, as I do, that there isn't a single religion that has any evidence of real gods. Now you have not just lack of evidence, but no reason to even begin the question, is there a god?
So do you leave the door open to anything and everything a human imagination can create? For example, fire breathing dragons? Or do you require at least some limits on what the possibilities are?
I do not object to people holding the position that absolutely anything and everything should always be left open to the possibility it is true. I don't hold that position.
Purple energy for example, something I just totally made up, does not need to be left open to speculation. If you want to make up god, totally without any reason nor evidence, then it is no different from my purple energy.
If I want to say purple energy is where the Universe came from because, "there is something rather than nothing", then I certainly can. And, you can say the same as a reason to conceive of god. But that is a different subject from testing for god based on what and why people believe in god in the first place.
You can have a god concept that is as baseless as my purple energy. If that is the case, then it is beyond science and not testable with science.
Or you can have a god concept, as I do, that can be evaluated because there are origins and history that can be explored. And there is current evidence that can be explored. And those origins, history and current evidence can be shown to be of human imagination and nothing more. Ergo, no god. |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 17:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Inference driven by the question: How is it that there is something rather than nothing?
But how does that follow with the answer, "because there is a god that made it so"?
I don't believe that I've ever suggested such a thing. But, there are actually three distinct questions - Does it or does it not follow?
- Do you believe that it does or does not follow?
[*]Can you prove that it does or does not follow?[*]
and it is less than helpful to blur that distinction.
In the final analysis, naturalism is an axiom, and a commitment to naturalism is a statement of faith. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 17:47:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The point I am trying to make here is my premise on testing the god theory presumes human religion and human belief in god(s) is the basis of god.
Upon what do you base this premise? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 19:28:58 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
In other words, I think your premise that there can be a god is based solely your learning about god from the human history of imagining that gods existed. You can take the concept that god originated either from truly existing or god originated from human imagination and test where the original concept of god began. If it was more likely than not based strictly on imagination and not on any thing else, then you have evidence there is no god.
The fact,If nobody on Earth to date had conceived of any sort of god whatsoever, then we would not be having this conversation. is trivially true. Just as is the fact that if nobody on Earth to date had ever conceived of a computer, you and I wouldn't be discussing this through this medium is true. Just as is the fact that if nobody had ever thought there was a "size" to the universe, we wouldn't question "well, what's outside it?" Just as is the fact that if nobody had ever dreamt up paper money, we wouldn't have any greenbacks.
If your premise is that if nobody had ever thought up god, we wouldn't think about god, is true. But the fact is that so many other things have been invented wholly out of the human imagination which have meaning and value to people, why not god? And there are many things which have been dreamt up first, and only later was evidence found to support the ideas. Wegener died before the evidence showed up which demonstrated continental drift. And Galileo didn't really have evidence that the Earth orbited the Sun (he was locked up for the lack of evidence, not for the claim itself).
And just who exactly was the first person to look at a lobster and think, "I wonder if these taste good?"quote:
Or you can have a god concept, as I do, that can be evaluated because there are origins and history that can be explored. And there is current evidence that can be explored. And those origins, history and current evidence can be shown to be of human imagination and nothing more. Ergo, no god.
And that's fine, if you're happy with a conclusion based upon human imagination and not a conclusion based upon what might actually exist in the universe at large. I find it sufficient to say that because there's no evidence of a god, and no way to test for one, I'm going to live my life as if none exist. But I might find one sitting in my kitchen tomorrow morning, human-based god concepts or not. I'm not so egocentric as to say that only the things I have evidence for exist, as I admit to being ignorant of a great amount of evidence for a tremendous number of concepts, deific or otherwise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 19:58:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DaveW:
And just who exactly was the first person to look at a lobster and think, "I wonder if these taste good?"
That was me, if recolection serves...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 22:40:16 [Permalink]
|
And just to be absolutely clear, even though this shouldn't need saying: Pluto existed long before there was any evidence for, or thought about it. Electrons existed long before they were posited. Etcetera. Unless you're willing to take a solipsistic view of things, four premises are trivially true:- Things we haven't yet thought of do not exist.
- Things we haven't yet thought of exist.
- Things we've thought of do not exist.
- Things we've thought of exist.
Now, given that inventors turn category 1 things into category 3 things and then into category 4 things on a regular basis, and that scientists are in the process of changing category 2 things into category 4 things (the process of discovery), and that humans turn category 4 things into category 3 things often (think "dodo"), and sometimes even into category 2 things (think "dark ages"), it seems obvious that things can change from one category to another.
So, what reasons are there that the concept of god is necessarily a category 3 thing which will never be a category 4 thing? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 01:48:13 [Permalink]
|
I don't know how else to explain my point but you all are missing it.
My premise is that evidence supports god as being a human creation.
This premise does not in any way mean one cannot have, "Things we haven't yet thought of exist", nor "things we've thought of do not exist".
It isn't that god is merely a product of one's imagination that makes it false. It's that there is evidence it is only a product of one's imagination. In other words, the only reason anyone believes in god(s) is because the belief has been passed on since the times when very little was understood. So humans invented god(s) not only as an explanation of why things happened, but also as an attempted means of controlling how things happened.
If I wanted to study any other area of anthropology or sociology or psychology, I would take what evidence was there and try to put the pieces together. But when it comes to religion, instead of taking the evidence and putting the pieces together, we say you can't do that because god isn't in the realm of science. But it is in the realm of science just as the development of governments or the development of economies or whatever.
There is evidence religion developed along with other social systems. There is no evidence god(s) of any kind were the actual basis for the development of religions. Religious texts/traditions do not contain any special knowledge that might be evidence for a god.
You keep skirting the question, what evidence is there for god? The answer is, the only evidence is the oral and written traditions of religion. And that evidence is better explained by human invention rather than real gods.
quote:
Dave: So, what reasons are there that the concept of god is necessarily a category 3 thing which will never be a category 4 thing?
It isn't relevant that there are many things we don't yet know about and purely imagining something doesn't mean it can't be true. What matters is you can look at the evidence in this case and make a determination.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 01:57:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The point I am trying to make here is my premise on testing the god theory presumes human religion and human belief in god(s) is the basis of god.
Upon what do you base this premise?
As I stated in the above post, all the evidence for a god(s) comes from religious traditions whether written or oral. No evidence is found outside of those written/oral traditions.
If gods were real, then there should be evidence. Dave doesn't accept that premise and I presume you don't either. But by definition god has to do something. And that something should be detectable. There is nothing detectable. There is no god.
We can go round and round on describing an undetectable god. But there is no basis for an undetectable god any more than there is a basis for purple energy. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 05:05:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If gods were real, then there should be evidence.
Really? Who made up that rule?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 14:47:18 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
But when it comes to religion, instead of taking the evidence and putting the pieces together, we say you can't do that because god isn't in the realm of science.
The reason we're talking past each other here is that you equate 'god' and 'religion'.quote:
But it is in the realm of science just as the development of governments or the development of economies or whatever.
Sure, but again, you're talking about religion and its social effects, and not any real god which might exist.quote:
There is evidence religion developed along with other social systems. There is no evidence god(s) of any kind were the actual basis for the development of religions. Religious texts/traditions do not contain any special knowledge that might be evidence for a god.
And again. Nobody in this thread is looking to a religious text and saying "there is evidence for god in there." Nobody is claiming that any current, previous or future human religion is, was or will be based upon any actual god. The development of human religion was independent of the existence (or not) of any possible supernatural beings.quote:
If gods were real, then there should be evidence. Dave doesn't accept that premise and I presume you don't either. But by definition god has to do something. And that something should be detectable. There is nothing detectable. There is no god.
Look, what you really need to do is be as specific in your conclusions as you are in your premises. Your conclusion is actually that "there is no god like those worshipped by the major religions of Earth." I'd agree with that without hesitation, but as has been said before, it would be a hasty generalization to go from that to "there is no god of any sort at all."quote:
We can go round and round on describing an undetectable god. But there is no basis for an undetectable god any more than there is a basis for purple energy.
Exactly. But...
200 years ago, no human knew of any evidence for Pluto. Your argument, had it been used back then, says that the planet did not exist at that point in time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2004 : 02:01:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave: The reason we're talking past each other here is that you equate 'god' and 'religion'.
I did say I was talking about the god of religion, Dave, but you keep going back to the 'can't rule anything out ever god'.
quote:
First issue, what does one mean by proof. I'm talking about reasonable proof here, not absolute. Not because I don't think the evidence is there, I think it is. But if we don't limit the term to 'reasonable' the discussion can wander afield to the semantics of 'you cannot prove anything', and that's another issue.
What evidence would be needed then, to decide which if any of the world's religions are true? Historical reports of miracles are unreliable. Stories and religious accounts of events are not well supported by scientific evidence. "Coyote stole fire from heaven" is not different in substance from "Noah took all the animals in the ark". Some folks may want to believe their stories are true, but in general, the stories are just that, stories.
One thing you might expect from a religion whose doctrine was supposedly inspired, if not written, by a god is some evidence of that god's influence. If you can only find man's or woman's influence in the religious texts, that would be evidence there was no god involved.
I keep trying to tell you I am talking about the real and practical world and not the philosophical world of no absolutes.
quote:
Ricky: "Don't tell God what to do" - Bohr
Why not? It is just those sort of platitudes people repeat without thought that keep us from examining god and religion from a scientific viewpoint.
quote:
ConsequentAtheist: Really? Who made up that rule? (If gods were real, then there should be evidence.)
It's hard for me to reply to this Consequent. I have tried but as Dave said we are talking past each other.
A very large percentage of the world's population believe there is a god that is not passive. If you want to leave open the possibility of a passive god or a god that doesn't do anything, go ahead.
I don't wish to entertain more than I am presented with. I am presented with gods whose origins have all the appearance of being merely that of the human imagination. Since I can find no evidence indicating otherwise, I feel there is sufficient evidence there is no god.
Should evidence be uncovered, or produced, I will consider it. I understand your position, but you have only been able to say my premise and/or conclusions are insufficient as far as you are concerned. But you have presented no supporting evidence for a god. Only that you can imagine one. And since I cannot test your imagined god, you use that as evidence refuting my premise.
I see no evidence to support your imagined god so I see no reason your invalidation of my premise should be considered.
I'm not trying to insult you, I have respect for what you are saying. But I'm not going to accept that you have presented any serious challenge to my hypothesis nor to the evidence supporting my hypothesis.
I think it's a given there will be millions of persons mostly religious and some perhaps not, that will not accept my hypothesis. So volume of opposition alone does not bother me. Without contrary evidence and with only what the mind is capable of conceiving as the basis for invalidating my hypothesis, I have confidence I am correct.
God is a product of human imagination.
Religious texts and traditions support that conclusion because there is no evidence of anything except imagination contained within them.
All of the texts and traditions have not been tested and I do not claim they have been.
Persons holding the viewpoint that there may be gods that are not based on religious texts and traditions are not addressed by this hypothesis except that no evidence of these gods has been presented either. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2004 : 03:23:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I'm not trying to insult you, I have respect for what you are saying. But I'm not going to accept that you have presented any serious challenge to my hypothesis nor to the evidence supporting my hypothesis.
But beskeptigal, you've presented no hypothesis. By redefining God as the defective map, you claim certainty about the existential possibility of the territory. Ironically, you end with an atheism predicated upon a thorough-going idealism.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2004 : 06:52:32 [Permalink]
|
| beskeptigal: indeed, you are talking about an extremely limited set of alleged phenomena. I agree with your conclusion under those limited conditions. What I was hoping for, however, was your response to your argument being applied to the existence of an at-the-time unknown planet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2004 : 11:44:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
beskeptigal: indeed, you are talking about an extremely limited set of alleged phenomena. I agree with your conclusion under those limited conditions. What I was hoping for, however, was your response to your argument being applied to the existence of an at-the-time unknown planet.
It's a no brainer there are an infinite number of things yet to be discovered.
But if we had a bunch of people who believed in a planet that after careful observation was determined not to be there, then it would be stated as so by a consensus of scientists. They wouldn't just keep stating forever, "well we don't see evidence for it but we'll keep an open mind". At some point, conclusions would be drawn.
But that approach is avoided with religion. Yet there is evidence to be evaluated, there are criteria to measure and/or evaluate the evidence. But it isn't PC to do the science in this case. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
