(A) God and/or/in Science

[JJ Husker]

 

 

It's the default position for every single human who was ever born, ever. . . before they were indoctrinated into or invented religion.

 

It's not just my default position, it's the default position. Logic decides. It goes back to Russell's teapot.

 

Russell's teapot- first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

 

I'm not making a claim of fact. I am explaining what I believe. I understand why that crucial difference may not want to be acknowledged in this discussion but I am amazed some are struggling to acknowledge it. Or are you trying to claim an atheist philosopher born in the 19th century gets to determine THE default position for the existence of God?

 

Logic-

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

 

Your logic or my logic or do you have a different definition in mind?

 

I can accept that is your default position. I can accept you don't believe in God. I can accept that your logic leads you to a different conclusion than mine does. I can accept that you may not feel I am using proper or reasonable logic. But, if your going to claim "there is no God" then I'm going to ask you to prove it every single time.

 

[Junior]

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

 

Sure, but if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then you can't have the audacity to say it doesn't exist, which plenty of aggressively atheistic scientists do.

 

I think JJ is just saying it goes both ways but the denying side doesn't seem to take grief for it.

 

 

Do you say "unicorns don't exist" or do you say "there is no evidence that unicorns exist"?

 

 

If the majority of people genuinely believed unicorns existed and I was having a serious conversation about it, I would say that there is no evidence that unicorns exist.

 

Do you believe unicorns exist?

[JJ Husker]

Do you believe unicorns exist?

 

I believe the hottie in Dodgeball had LOTS of unicorns in her apartment. Fact.

[The Dude]

Russell's teapot- first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

.

 

I'm not making a claim of fact. I am explaining what I believe. I understand why that crucial difference may not want to be acknowledged in this discussion but I am amazed some are struggling to acknowledge it. Or are you trying to claim an atheist philosopher born in the 19th century gets to determine THE default position for the existence of God?

Yes, you're making a statement of belief - an assertion.

 

Russell didn't get to decide anything, he just came up with a really famous analogy that explains something inherent to philosophical discourse. But apparently the point of the analogy escapes you?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What if it was all just one little push?

 

It's a question that we will never have an answer to. We can recreate the early stages of evolution, but one should ask how all the necessary elements got to the point where they were able to come together in the first place. We can recreate the Big Bang, but one should ask how all the necessary elements got to the point where they were able to to create the Big Bang. There's always going to be that one step back, and that question I don't think can ever be answered.

 

What if whatever God placed everything where it needed to be, and the rest just took care of itself?

[tschu]

Oh man, we're into a burden of proof argument now. Great.

[JJ Husker]

Russell's teapot- first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

.

 

I'm not making a claim of fact. I am explaining what I believe. I understand why that crucial difference may not want to be acknowledged in this discussion but I am amazed some are struggling to acknowledge it. Or are you trying to claim an atheist philosopher born in the 19th century gets to determine THE default position for the existence of God?

Yes, you're making a statement of belief - an assertion.

 

Russell didn't get to decide anything, he just came up with a really famous analogy that explains something inherent to philosophical discourse. But apparently the point of the analogy escapes you?

 

I am not making an assertion.

 

Assert-

: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

: to demonstrate the existence of

: to state (something) in a strong and definite way

: to demand that other people accept or respect (something)

Synonyms- affirm, aver, avouch, avow, declare, guarantee, lay down, profess

 

I am telling (informing) you or others reading this what I believe-

 

Statement-

: something that you say or write in a formal or official way : something that is stated

: an opinion, attitude, etc., that you express through the things you do, the way you dress, etc.

Tell or inform-

: to say or write (something) to (someone)

: to say (a word or words) to (someone)

: to give information to (someone) by speaking or writing

 

A statement of belief is not the same thing as an assertion. It is simply providing information of what I believe.

 

I get the point of his teapot analogy, very well. It would actually be an analogy if I or anyone here had stated as a matter of fact that "God created...." or "God exists" and requested you (someone) to disprove that. I have not made that claim or request.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion but, unless the topic evolves in a little different direction, this has run it's course.

 

[tschu]

So you (speaking to all creationist or proponents of a creator or higher power creating life or directing evolution or whatever) then acknowledge that your belief is simply that - an idea that exists in your head, with no basis in actual reality and no evidence, outside of your own thoughts, of any of it being true?

[JJ Husker]

What if it was all just one little push?

 

It's a question that we will never have an answer to. We can recreate the early stages of evolution, but one should ask how all the necessary elements got to the point where they were able to come together in the first place. We can recreate the Big Bang, but one should ask how all the necessary elements got to the point where they were able to to create the Big Bang. There's always going to be that one step back, and that question I don't think can ever be answered.

 

What if whatever God placed everything where it needed to be, and the rest just took care of itself?

 

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God.

 

The basic premise is that something caused or continuously causes the Universe to exist, and this First Cause is what we call God. It has been used by various theologians and philosophers over the centuries, from the ancient Greeks Plato and Aristotle to the medievals (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas) and beyond. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So you (speaking to all creationist or proponents of a creator or higher power creating life or directing evolution or whatever) then acknowledge that your belief is simply that - an idea that exists in your head, with no basis in actual reality and no evidence, outside of your own thoughts, of any of it being true?

 

Yes, nothing that I see in my life will ever tell me if I was right or not. But then again I never said that there's anybody directing evolution, either. I suppose that's okay, though. I am rooted in science enough to understand that my belief has no evidence to back it up, and by that I should reject it as a belief. But I refuse to do just that.

 

I'm not going to argue that Earth is 4,000 years old...that's dumb, it really is. But is it too farfetched to think that all of this could have occurred from just the slightest of pushes?

[JJ Husker]

So you (speaking to all creationist or proponents of a creator or higher power creating life or directing evolution or whatever) then acknowledge that your belief is simply that - an idea that exists in your head, with no basis in actual reality and no evidence, outside of your own thoughts, of any of it being true?

 

Basically yes. The only adjustment I would make is that it is based on some things I have perceived as reality and some anecdotal evidence. I would also throw in that many many people share very similar thoughts and ideas in their heads. Other than that you've pretty much got it. But evidence that it's true that I can convey to you? Nah.

[tschu]

So you (speaking to all creationist or proponents of a creator or higher power creating life or directing evolution or whatever) then acknowledge that your belief is simply that - an idea that exists in your head, with no basis in actual reality and no evidence, outside of your own thoughts, of any of it being true?

 

Basically yes. The only adjustment I would make is that it is based on some things I have perceived as reality and some anecdotal evidence. I would also throw in that many many people share very similar thoughts and ideas in their heads. Other than that you've pretty much got it. But evidence that it's true that I can convey to you? Nah.

Okay, just checking.

[Husker_x]

A little Show & Tell here.

 

I'm not tech savvy enough to distribute files, but for anyone who's interested I thought I would pass along something a buddy of mine brought over on his external a few weeks ago: http://www.thegreatc...l.aspx?cid=1515

 

It's a class from the Great Courses company on the origin of life, taught by Harvard PhD and George Mason University professor/researcher Robert Hazan. It looks like you'd have to normally pay a hefty fee to get this stuff. I'm willing to try something else out if anyone is especially interested (the price tag is like 200$). Basically it's a 24-video course that takes you through just about everything a lay person probably need know about this controversy we're all chatting about.

 

I'm a pretty big podcaster and reader, so I appreciate stuff like this. And just as a general statement, I didn't know much about the Great Courses series until my pal showed up, but I've since looked at the website and actually seen some of the content: it's really good for continuing education. There's a reason for the price tag. If that doesn't tickle your fancy, you can also check out Youtube where Yale has a channel devoted to (what looks like mostly undergraduate) courses on damn near anything you can think of. Link below. Make sure you check out the playlist section.

 

http://www.youtube.c...eAP1xGsh61eOoJA

 

Edit: On the Yale courses, I've seen most of the one on the New Testament, and I believe there is also one on the OT as well that I've only sampled (it seemed like a lot of repeat of books I'd already read). There is a great course by one of the top Greek scholars in the world; made slightly annoying by his constant throat clearing (I mean that erg herm literally).

[MLB 51]

Any of you ever read, "How to build a habitable planet" by Wallace S. Broecker?

[The Dude]

My brain is sweating.