Exposing Atheistic Myths

[abaddon]

"A God"? Not the omnimax God?

No, I wouldn't expect that. Because if I were a theist I wouldn't propose THAT God.

"So you agree with the ontological argument, too?

"I don't believe there's an omnimax being."

"So you agree with the argument for an omnimax being?"

If you can, Half-Life, try to make a little sense, ok?

 

[steve_bank]

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

I've been in enough discussions where this point always arrives and I cannot explain it, I can only observe it and accept my observations as accurate. That a person states that visible, sensory, predictable physicality just happening to exist is an absurd claim. But an alleged magical creature infinitely more complex and intelligent similarly just happening to exist is not. For the latter we need no explanation, accounting, or proof, but for the former, we do not accept any of it as real without the latter. It's simply astounding to experience, a gift.

This will always be the most fascinating, revealing and fulfilling observation I shall ever make of the human species.

Science is obviously absurd...obviously it all came from n all powerful unseen being. It says so in an ancient scarp of writing by an unknown writer, proof positive.

 

[Politesse]

Such a question seem to be making the assumption that only some powerful intelligence could 'make' things follow physical laws. This should, if you are rational, cause you to wonder what 'made' this powerful intelligence... then what 'made' the maker... what 'made' the 'maker' of of the 'maker' of that powerful intelligence.. etc. etc.

For physicists, things are always observed to follow physical laws. That is sufficient.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking what you mean.

What I mean? I mean that I have never seen any reason to assume that inanimate objects have independent will (animism) or that some divine intelligence and power is required to understand that inanimate objects actions predictably are governed by the laws of physics.

If you can demonstrate where this isn't true then there could be a Nobel prize in your future.

Unable to defend your own point of view except by attacking others, you have resorted to simply inventing arguments your "opponents" might be making, and refuting those. I am baffled at the news that I somehow turned from a fictive conservative theist to a fictive modern animist within just four posts. If I keep asking questions, do you think I could graduate to a fictive post-Hegelian-Zoroastrian virtue ethicist within eight?

I do not, in fact, have a position on the issue. Was trying to figure out what yours was, not argue you down.

 

[skepticalbip]

What I mean? I mean that I have never seen any reason to assume that inanimate objects have independent will (animism) or that some divine intelligence and power is required to understand that inanimate objects actions predictably are governed by the laws of physics.

If you can demonstrate where this isn't true then there could be a Nobel prize in your future.

Unable to defend your own point of view except by attacking others, you have resorted to simply inventing arguments your "opponents" might be making, and refuting those. I am baffled at the news that I somehow turned from a fictive conservative theist to a fictive modern animist within just four posts. If I keep asking questions, do you think I could graduate to a fictive post-Hegelian-Zoroastrian virtue ethicist within eight?

I do not, in fact, have a position on the issue. Was trying to figure out what yours was, not argue you down.

And yet, when I clearly explain my position, you somehow see it as a personal attack.

 

[Politesse]

What I mean? I mean that I have never seen any reason to assume that inanimate objects have independent will (animism) or that some divine intelligence and power is required to understand that inanimate objects actions predictably are governed by the laws of physics.

If you can demonstrate where this isn't true then there could be a Nobel prize in your future.

Unable to defend your own point of view except by attacking others, you have resorted to simply inventing arguments your "opponents" might be making, and refuting those. I am baffled at the news that I somehow turned from a fictive conservative theist to a fictive modern animist within just four posts. If I keep asking questions, do you think I could graduate to a fictive post-Hegelian-Zoroastrian virtue ethicist within eight?

I do not, in fact, have a position on the issue. Was trying to figure out what yours was, not argue you down.

And yet, when I clearly explain my position, you somehow see it as a personal attack.

Who said anything about a personal attack? I'm not a windmill.

 

[Rhea]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

you are asking "what 'makes' a round peg fit into a round hole and not fit into a square hole?"
Matter gets in the way of other matter.
What a strange philosophy that insists, "yes, but it must have been decided by someone!"

 

[atrib]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

I don't know. I accept reality as a brute fact and proceed from there. I have no reason to believe that the laws of nature are subject to the whims of an intelligent supernatural entity that exists beyond our visible universe, as you appear to believe.

It is hypothetically possible that I am just a brain in a vat, and that the reality I observe, including other people, is a simulation. I can't disprove it, but I have no reason to believe it to be true either, so I proceed with my life based on the assumption that reality is real, and it does what it does.

 

[Politesse]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

You put 'therefore' in a weird place. And 'Should.'

X is a fact. Sure.
Just, don't see any reason to think that 'why is x a fact?' is a useful question, except to justify a belief that some people already hold.

 

[Politesse]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

You put 'therefore' in a weird place. And 'Should.'

X is a fact. Sure.
Just, don't see any reason to think that 'why is x a fact?' is a useful question, except to justify a belief that some people already hold.

Well, I guess this is just a difference of personality masquerading as a question of philosophy. I've always been the "why" type, I don't see that as likely to change no matter what labels people decide to stick on me from post to post.

 

[abaddon]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

Up to the "should ask no further questions" bit, I would answer that question with Yes.

Here are some sample further questions:

Is it the nature of matter to obey rules that are external to itself?
What makes those rule do what they do? More rules/laws/principles?
Can matter even exist without having some inherent characteristics?
Won't its innate characteristics affect its behavior?
Or is the only inherent trait of matter is that it must obey the rules (that themselves in turn need to be explained)?

But I don't know the answers. I can wait to see if science finds them. I much prefer that to jerking metaphysical shit out of my ass.

 

[bilby]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

You put 'therefore' in a weird place. And 'Should.'

X is a fact. Sure.
Just, don't see any reason to think that 'why is x a fact?' is a useful question, except to justify a belief that some people already hold.

Well, I guess this is just a difference of personality masquerading as a question of philosophy. I've always been the "why" type, I don't see that as likely to change no matter what labels people decide to stick on me from post to post.

Having asked "why", and having concluded that not only is there no possible way to determine the answer, but there's no way to even decide whether the question itself is a sensible one to ask, the smart move is to drop the question pending evidence of any kind that could help determine these things.

I am still waiting - though I note that many simply invent some 'evidence', and proceed as though it were useful to do so.

 

[atrib]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

What is X in this scenario? The existence of reality? Or the characteristics of this reality and everything we observe within it? And who said anything about not asking further questions, or that we have no means of researching it? Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Gun Nut]

All our observations tell us that reality (surface tension) behaves in a certain way that is measurable and predictable. And everything we know about surface tension tells us that humans can't walk on water, because the magnitude of the forces associated with surface tension in water is not sufficient to support the forces associated with humans subject to gravity at or near the surface of this planet. The laws appear to be fixed, and we don't observe any deviations from these laws, at least not at the masses and velocities we associate with life on this planet.

And we have never observed a God, or been provided sufficient evidence to believe that the god you believe in exists, much less that it possesses the ability to bend the laws of nature to its whims. You can believe whatever you want, but is this belief reasonable? That is the big picture question that theists don't like to think about.

What is it that "makes" things follow physical laws? What has "fixed" these properties.

such loose terms... ok.. what "makes" these things "fixed" is the "shape" of the Universe.

 

[Politesse]

So you don't know anything about x and have no plausible means of researching x, therefore feel that you should assume x is a fact and should ask no further questions about x?

What is X in this scenario? The existence of reality? Or the characteristics of this reality and everything we observe within it? And who said anything about not asking further questions, or that we have no means of researching it? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Skepticalbip made very vague case that there are "physical laws" which have been "fixed". I was inquiring about their meaning. The rest has all been attributed to me by assumption. It amuses me that after more than a decade of hangin out in atheist communities, folks still think my agnosticism is some sort of long game ruse and that I am about to leap out from a dark corner with a Scofield Reference Bible going "Ha! I was trying to convert you all along!"

As for not asking questions, you wrote:

It is hypothetically possible that I am just a brain in a vat, and that the reality I observe, including other people, is a simulation. I can't disprove it, but I have no reason to believe it to be true either, so I proceed with my life based on the assumption that reality is real, and it does what it does.

"Basing one's life on an assumption" sounded like "not asking questions about it" to me, I apologize if I over-assumed. We may have different definitions of "assume".

 

[steve_bank]

Agnostics are fence sitters, maybe yes maybe no. I don't think there is a god but I think there may be some kind of cosmic intelligence, or maybe....

As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.

 

[Politesse]

Agnostics are fence sitters, maybe yes maybe no. I don't think there is a god but I think there may be some kind of cosmic intelligence, or maybe....

Agnostics are people whose rule is not to pretend at knowledge where none yet exists. It is a position on epistemology, not theism.

 

[Politesse]

As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.

If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.

 

[Treedbear]

As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.

If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.

 

[abaddon]

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle.

It is if you SEE Jupiter do that.

"Break" was a poor choice of word. The only thing a new, extraordinary event would break is the norm of people's expectations. If you see it happen then you have to say something else than it "breaks" the laws of science.

There needs to be a rational explanation.

One should look for one. Jumping to "miracle" would be extremely presumptuous.

The key word is "see". Who is known to have seen "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws"? The question is, what miracles has any theist ever seen?