God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

By naturalistically I mean arising in accordance with the laws of nature. God writing "I did it supernaturally" in the clouds wouldn't be naturalistic yet would be observable.

You believe that whatever is not yet known (but will become known) will turn out to be naturalistic. Don't you?

Yes but I am also an naturalist and a humanist, both of which are belief systems. That is not to say that I think the supernatural doesn't exist, I think it is irrelevant.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In the sense that we're just normal human beings acting reasonably yes. Why do you feel like you need to persist with this idea that atheism is a belief system when we consistently tell you its not?

Because what you tell us doesn't add up. For example

No I don't believe anything with respect to what is yet unknown about the universe and I don't expect I will ever know that unknown I'm fine with that. I'm happy to observe and know as much as I can. My experience has been that everything I know has a natural reason.

Is this not more like agnosticm - you apparently granting that the unknown could contain God or contain more naturalism? If "expecting" more naturalism then that is belief based - is it not? A belief based on projection, granted. But belief all the same.

Personally I don't no (but its trending that way). Everything up to the limit of my knowledge has a natural reason I don't need to go further than that, you do each to his own.

Can I pose the same question at you as posed earlier?

I gather there are plenty of Christians who hold to ToE and an old Earth. What have you got that they haven't got? Like, when you have to reach down into the darkest recesses of your hat to pull out a quantum fluctuation or the like then both you and we begin to sound increasingly alike.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

Yes but I am also an naturalist and a humanist, both of which are belief systems. That is not to say that I think the supernatural doesn't exist, I think it is irrelevant.

Okay..

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, they have a common disbelief in a God.

Do you believe that all arose naturalistically. Or are you agnostic about origins.

God turned up - what does that mean?

Demonstrated he exists. That evidence forms the basis of my belief. Just as evidence generally forms the basis of any belief.

You are choosing to believe in something that you cannot show me. That you cannot give me any proof of.

That I can't give you proof of what I thought 5 seconds ago doesn't mean I didn't think what I thought. I doesn't mean the thought wasn't real. It doesn't even mean I choose to think what I thought.

As there is no evidence to support a belief that an omnipotent being produced life as I know it, I have no alternative than to suppose it came about another way.

Suppose/believe? Is that not but semantics?

Can I suggest you suppose/believe what you believe based on evidence for it - not lack of evidence for something else. The (interpretation of the) evidence leading to the argument "Naturalismdidit" is the most compelling - and so you believe it.

It's nothing to be ashamed of btw. It's the most rational position to take.

It's not that I think Christianity have it wrong, Buddhism is incorrect or Islam have the wrong end of the stick - if any of those belief systems could prove to me that they had the right answer, I'd go with that.

I would hope so. One should always go where the evidence points.

I can touch my house, it's there, it's palpable. I can touch the ground. If I drop a cup it hits the floor, if my heart stops beating I die & so on. There are definite assumptions I can make that are based on what I can see, feel & hear – in fact, not just what I can see, hear & feel but what anyone else around me can as well. It's not just a private audience with science.

Thoughts? Do they not exist because they aren't empirical in nature?

Turtles?

An old lady asked a scientist "what does the world rest upon?" He replies mockingly "it sits on the back of a giant turtle" "But what does that turtle rest upon" she enquires".

"It's turtles all the way down"

Used to illustrate that a point of view/argument has no concrete moorings. Rational empiricism - the notion that all we can know is that which is detectable by the 5 senses - is an example of a turtles-all-the-way-down philosophy. It has no concrete moorings against which to fix itself - so as to support the claim. You invoke it here.

I think a lot of religious people have had to accept the world is slightly older than they were led to believe & so on, I’m not sure that bolsters your point any tbh. I don’t have to reach into my hat, I don’t spend every day arguing or fighting to maintain my belief in the unknown or try to convince others that despite there being no evidence, I'm still right. I sleep more than happily with the knowledge that I just don’t know but equally happy that I haven’t just made something up to plug the gap.

So your an agnostic then?

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indeed. And all a-fairyists, like you and I, share a unfiying belief. And all a-pixieists (you and I), and a-pinkelephantists (you and I), and a-cosmicspidermonkeyists (you and I). In fact, I feel we have an awful lot in common, we could share an almost infinite number of unifying beliefs. Why do we disagree so, brother?

Ahem!

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is this not more like agnosticm - you apparently granting that the unknown could contain God or contain more naturalism?

No I'm not, I'm granting that I don't know yet and may never know, but that everything I do know/understand has natural cause/reason everything beyond that point for both of us is imagination. I'm just not jumping the gun.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If "expecting" more naturalism then that is belief based - is it not? A belief based on projection, granted. But belief all the same.

Again you fail to see I'm not expecting anything I don't know yet and I may never know and thats fine. You on the other hand don't seem content with that pov you are expecting a god because according to you he told you he was there. Each to his own.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I pose the same question at you as posed earlier?

I gather there are plenty of Christians who hold to ToE and an old Earth. What have you got that they haven't got? Like, when you have to reach down into the darkest recesses of your hat to pull out a quantum fluctuation or the like then both you and we begin to sound increasingly alike.

Cut the jargon and I might be able to.

antiskeptic

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This is not a tenant of atheism. You can be an atheist and not know or claim to know what happened in the beginning.

I wasn't suggesting that you have to know what happened. I'm suggesting what is believed.

Do you believe that it all arose naturalistically. Or are you an agnostic.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm granting that I don't know yet and may never know, but that everything I do know/understand has natural cause/reason everything beyond that point for both of us is imagination. I'm just not jumping the gun.

There is no jumping the gun involved in acknowledging possibilities. It's jumping the gun to suppose which of those possibilities will be the one.

Again you fail to see I'm not expecting anything I don't know yet and I may never know and thats fine.

What's renders this other than agnosticism?

Cut the jargon and I might be able to.

There might be no need for the question. If your agnostic on origins universe/life then you hold the same position as Christians who believe in ToE and an ancient earth do - as far as empirical evidence based positions go.

antiskeptic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indeed. And all a-fairyists, like you and I, share a unfiying belief. And all a-pixieists (you and I), and a-pinkelephantists (you and I), and a-cosmicspidermonkeyists (you and I). In fact, I feel we have an awful lot in common, we could share an almost infinite number of unifying beliefs. Why do we disagree so, brother?

I was suggesting that atheists share a unifying belief (which is not empirically evidenced). They would appear to indeed share the boat with the above. And the Christians.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no jumping the gun involved in acknowledging possibilities. It's jumping the gun to suppose which of those possibilities will be the one.

So who is doing the supposing?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's renders this other than agnosticism?

There might be no need for the question. If your agnostic on origins universe/life

Of course! Every one is agnostic on the origins of the universe we're just scratching the surface(I don't know if even thats through I don't study the origins of the universe do you?). The reason I'm an atheist (for the 5th or 6th time) is that there is no evidence for the supernatural from what I do know. Is it getting through at all? I will gladly except the evidence when provided.

antiskeptic wrote: »

then you hold the same position as Christians who believe in ToE and an ancient earth do - as far as empirical evidence based positions go.

No I'm not claiming any belief on these things. Why do refuse to acknowledge this?

Ps ever hear of Soul Winner I'd swear you're the same person.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So who is doing the supposing?

The one who doesn't grant that the unknown can contain God as well as more naturalism. You apparently.

Of course! Every one is agnostic on the origins of the universe we're just scratching the surface(I don't know if even thats through I don't study the origins of the universe do you?). The reason I'm an atheist (for the 5th or 6th time) is that there is no evidence for the supernatural from what I do know. Is it getting through at all? I will gladly except the evidence when provided.

So you do grant that the unknown can contain God? What's the difference between you and an agnostic in that case?

No I'm not claiming any belief on these things. Why do refuse to acknowledge this?

You don't believe in the theory of Evolution. Nor in an ancient earth? I'm perplexed.. what do you believe in that case?

Mickeroo

antiskeptic,earlier you claimed to have seen evidence of god's existence, would you explain what the evidence was?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you do grant that the unknown can contain God? What's the difference between you and an agnostic in that case?

He doesn't believe gods exist, which is completely different to acknowledging that anything, no matter how unlikely, could exist outside of our current sphere of knowledge.

It's becoming clear that you're not actually paying attention to peoples responses, so consider this a gentle warning that gentle trolls will be gently removed.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The one who doesn't grant that the unknown can contain God as well as more naturalism. You apparently.

So you do grant that the unknown can contain God? What's the difference between you and an agnostic in that case?

You don't believe in the theory of Evolution. Nor in an ancient earth? I'm perplexed.. what do you believe in that case?

What Dades said.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you believe that all arose naturalistically. Or are you agnostic about origins.

You seem to be on a one man mission to try to get us all to say we are closet agnostics. Would that be accurate? I'm not really agnostic about anything tbh. In order to be agnostic I would have to believe in the existence of God - and I don't. Not when the world began, not now, not in 100 billion yrs from now. Until I get irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise then I will continue not to know how life originated & still think it most likely explanation has nothing to do with an omnipotent being.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Demonstrated he exists. That evidence forms the basis of my belief. Just as evidence generally forms the basis of any belief.

I've never had such a demonstration - and nor has any theist been able to show me their evidence. So I have to discount that as faith and belief, rather than evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That I can't give you proof of what I thought 5 seconds ago doesn't mean I didn't think what I thought. I doesn't mean the thought wasn't real. It doesn't even mean I choose to think what I thought.

No, it just means I only have your word for it. I just don't work on the principle that because someone or something says something, it is so. I require something a little bit more substantial to place my beliefs in. I'm an auld cynic that way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose/believe? Is that not but semantics?

I suppose it depends who is using it & in what context. I think supposition is open to a change as & when new evidence presents its self. In my experience many religious beliefs are dogged & do not change regardless of the evidence provided...the OT & creationists would be a famous example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I suggest you suppose/believe what you believe based on evidence for it - not lack of evidence for something else. The (interpretation of the) evidence leading to the argument "Naturalismdidit" is the most compelling - and so you believe it.

It's nothing to be ashamed of btw. It's the most rational position to take.

You can suggest it, of course but you would be wrong. My atheistic origins began when I started questioning the validity of theist conscripts & dogma - long, long before I ever considered an alternative. I was pretty sure by the age of five that God hadn't created the world but nearly three decades later I can hold my hands up & say I still don't know what did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thoughts? Do they not exist because they aren't empirical in nature?

I know thoughts exist because I have experienced them for myself. If you hook anyone up to a neuroimager you will see the electrical activity in a persons brain that equates to concious & unconscious thought. However, if someone told me that I should believe a small dog called Ricky was here to rule the world because they had thought it & Ricky had shown themselves to them, I would likewise be rather sceptical...

antiskeptic wrote: »

An old lady asked a scientist "what does the world rest upon?" He replies mockingly "it sits on the back of a giant turtle" "But what does that turtle rest upon" she enquires".

"It's turtles all the way down"

Used to illustrate that a point of view/argument has no concrete moorings. Rational empiricism - the notion that all we can know is that which is detectable by the 5 senses - is an example of a turtles-all-the-way-down philosophy. It has no fixed moorings against which to fix itself so as to support the claim. You invoke it here.

I'm not sure what claim you think I'm making other than the one that nobody knows for sure how life began. I, personally, don't believe in omnipotent beings, spaghetti monsters or Ricky the dog because they have no hold in my tangeable world. Evolution, Black holes & anti-matter have no irrefutable hold in my world either btw, I just find them easier to accept as fact because the people claiming they exist have to have more substance to place their claims on than "Because I say so".

I see what you mean about the world on the turtle (Pratchett fan was he?) You can't prove there is a God yet you believe in one. I can't prove there is no God but I think it highly unlikely or no less likely than Ricky the dog...if not being able to prove how the world started is a pre-requisite to the club, surely we're all in it?

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This is not a tenant of atheism. You can be an atheist and not know or claim to know what happened in the beginning.

I agree here - can we say that atheists have a "common" belief in that they dont believe in God.That doesnt make them organised like a church and unified like that.

The definition of unified belief implies some sort of formal structure which does not exist in Ireland and the UK. But surely that is seperate - and where I get to ask about the transmision of ideas.

Is atheism a cultural phenomenum or more like with the pop & Televangelatheism of a certain professor from Oxford.I dont want to harp on about it but I do think we need to get an idea on its this way.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think it's anything like that. I think religion has made itself hugely unpopular to the extent that it's now completely acceptable to not have a religion or even a belief in God.

I think it's just a natural progression...the world was flat, God created it in 6 days, etc, etc. As more & more of what used to be explained by the Good Book has been discounted and claimed by science so those subscribing to those ideals have dwindled.

I think likening atheism to a cult or fashion just goes to show how out of touch a lot of theists are & in many ways, why their beliefs are becoming so universally unpopular.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

He doesn't believe gods exist, which is completely different to acknowledging that anything, no matter how unlikely, could exist outside of our current sphere of knowledge.

The agnostic doesn't believe that gods exist either. The reason for their not believing is lack of evidence to support belief - which seems fair enough to me. If he acknowledges that God can exist where his knowledge currently doesn't extend to then the query stands: what difference between him and an agnostic.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The agnostic doesn't believe that gods exist either. The reason for their not believing is lack of evidence to support belief - which seems fair enough to me. If he acknowledges that God can exist where his knowledge currently doesn't extend to then the query stands: what difference between him and an agnostic.

I'm not agnostic on the question of god. I don't acknowledge god exists. All I acknowledge about what I don't know is that I don't know. Simple really? I'm beginning to think this is a waste of time.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The agnostic doesn't believe that gods exist either. The reason for their not believing is lack of evidence to support belief - which seems fair enough to me. If he acknowledges that God can exist where his knowledge currently doesn't extend to then the query stands: what difference between him and an agnostic.

An agnostic acknowledges that God may exist...this atheist acknowledges anything may exist in the sphere of that which we don't know. You seem to want to limit that to the possible existence of "God".

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You seem to be on a one man mission to try to get us all to say we are closet agnostics. Would that be accurate? I'm not really agnostic about anything tbh. In order to be agnostic I would have to believe in the existence of God - and I don't.

Er.. agnostics don't believe in the existance of God. The acknowledge it is possible that God exists but for want of evidence they can't say that he does. They say "we don't know"

Not when the world began, not now, not in 100 billion yrs from now. Until I get irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise then I will continue not to know how life originated & still think it most likely explanation has nothing to do with an omnipotent being.

You appear to acknowledge that it is possible for God to exist. In which case my query is: what's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist around here.

I never had such a demonstration - and nor has any theist been able to show me their evidence. So I have to discount that as faith and belief, rather than evidence.

I'm not saying that you should believe. I'm saying why I do. Evidence based - just like any belief in anything I can think of

No, it just means I only have your word for it. I just don't work on the principle that because someone or something says something, it is so. I require something a little bit more substantial to place my beliefs in. I'm an auld cynic that way.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm asking whether you need empirical proof for everything you believe (given that there is no empirical proof for the thought that went through your brain 5 seconds ago). You do know you had that thought - don't you

I suppose it depends who is using it & in what context. I think supposition is open to a change as & when new evidence presents its self. In my experience many religious beliefs are dogged & do not change regardless of the evidence provided...the OT & creationists would be a famous example.

Although a creationist I think the attempts a "proving" creation scientifically are laughable. So I escape from under that charge..

You can suggest it, of course but you would be wrong. My atheistic origins began when I started questioning the validity of theist conscripts & dogma - long, long before I ever considered an alternative. I was pretty sure by the age of five that God hadn't created the world but nearly three decades later I can hold my hands up & say I still don't know what did.

The two foundational positions are inseperable. If no God (supernatural) then natural processes are the only possibility left in town. Insofar as you step away from God you step into naturalism - irrespective of your consciously considering it or not.

Although not knowing what (natural process) might have produced the universe do you believe it occurred naturalistically?

I know thoughts exist because I have experienced them for myself. If you hook anyone up to a neuroimager you will see the electrical activity in a persons brain that equates to concious & unconscious thought. However, if someone told me that I should believe a small dog called Ricky was here to rule the world because they had thought it & Ricky had shown themselves to them, I would likewise be rather sceptical...

And if the thought that Ricky was here to rule the world took hold and all your subsequent thoughts found that to make more sense that all competing thoughts - no matter how rational and reasonable they appeared to be before the arrival of the Ricky thought. Then what?

If deciding to sign yourself into the local mental institution perhaps you could inform us as to why?

I'm not sure what claim you think I'm making other than the one that nobody knows for sure how life began. I, personally, don't believe in omnipotent beings, spaghetti monsters or Ricky the dog because they have no hold in my tangeable world.

I suppose I'm trying to ascertain what the difference is between an agnostic (who doesn't believe in gods but who acknowledges that God could well exist) and an atheist (who doesn't believe in gods but who acknowledges that God could well exist)

It appears to me that for an atheist to separate himself from the agnostic he has to step forward with a declaration such as "I believe that there is no possibility for gods to exist" rendering his position a faith-based one.

Perhaps there is some other declaration that can be made in which case I'm all ears.

Evolution, Black holes & anti-matter have no irrefutable hold in my world either btw, I just find them easier to accept as fact because the people claiming they exist have to have more substance to place their claims on than "Because I say so".

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, black holes, big bang and all the rest of it.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

An agnostic acknowledges that God may exist...this atheist acknowledges anything may exist in the sphere of that which we don't know. You seem to want to limit that to the possible existence of "God".

The agnostic definition of God wouldn't differ from your anything. Perhaps we should use the terms natural and supernatural. Thus:

The agnostic doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be. The atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be.

My question is what is the difference between them?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

The agnostic definition of God wouldn't differ from your anything. Perhaps we should use the terms natural and supernatural. Thus:

The agnostic doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be. The atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be.

My question is what is the difference between them?

The atheist thinks that making an assertion that the supernatural exists is ridiculous and laughable. It's the same as organising your entire life around the knowledge that you will win the euromillions lottery.

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not agnostic on the question of god.

Er...

All I acknowledge about what I don't know is that I don't know.

That's all an agnostic acknowledges on the issue of God. "I don't know..."

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

The atheist thinks that making an assertion that the supernatural exists is ridiculous and laughable. It's the same as organising your entire life around the knowledge that you will win the euromillions lottery.

Which means the atheist isn't a theist - that much I had kind of gathered

The question is: is he an agnostic - who doesn't make such a statement.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which means the atheist isn't a theist - that much I had kind of gathered

The question is: is he an agnostic - who doesn't make such a statement.

You can be an agnostic atheist. It's arguing semantics anyway and it has been done to death on this forum.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The agnostic definition of God wouldn't differ from your anything. Perhaps we should use the terms natural and supernatural. Thus:

The agnostic doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be. The atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural but permits it could be.

My question is what is the difference between them?

There are a myriad of titchy teeny differences - are you referring to the apathetic agnostic? The weak agnostic? The theist agnostic? The atheistic agnostic?...if there were no differences, there would only be one term.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er...




That's all an agnostic acknowledges on the issue of God. "I don't know..."

Yes but I'm an atheist I don't consider god(the supernatural) like I don't consider fairies.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There are a myriad of titchy teeny differences - are you referring to the apathetic agnostic? The weak agnostic? The theist agnostic? The atheistic agnostic?...if there were no differences, there would only be one term.

I was referring to the agnostic who says "I don't believe in gods but accept there could be one" and the atheist who appears to say the same

What sets the atheist apart? Why would he call himself an atheist and not an agnostic. If you're an atheist and if this has been "done to death" then surely the answer is there at your fingertips

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. agnostics don't believe in the existance of God. The acknowledge it is possible that God exists but for want of evidence they can't say that he does. They say "we don't know".

I think we've reached the root of the problem here; namely you have no idea what you are talking about.

- Agnosticism is a declaration that "we cannot know", leaving the question as to the existence of gods as open.

- Atheism is a stated belief that gods do not exist.

They are not mutually exclusive, as one can clearly state you believe that gods do not exist, while acknowledging that nothing can be proven either way.

Any more failures in grasping this point will result in a short break from this forum to allow you to do some basic reading elsewhere, as you don't seem to want to listen here.