on God: The modernist's real problem.

[lightgigantic]

Now we are back where we started - then if its equally mysterious (ie relies on deductive knowledge) whether the universe is designed or not, why does the atheist choose to situate their ontology on an impersonal universe (which is a conclusion that relies on deductive reasoning)?

.....unless of course it is simply a case of diametrically opposed views ("I am right and you are wrong")

 

[Cris]

why does the atheist choose to situate their ontology on an impersonal universe

Because there is nothing to indicate anything else.

 

[lightgigantic]

Only if you accept the deductive reasoning behind an impersonal universe - by your definition of atheism you would expect an atheist to sit on the fence because deductive reasoning is required to either be fixed in an impersonal concept of the universe or a personal one - but you see atheists staunchly at the blockades of evolution, the big bang theory, etc etc and so many other ontologies backed by deductive reasoning and "educated guesses".

 

[SnakeLord]

Someone comes up to you and ensures you that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You ask for evidence, he has none.. what do you do?

While there might be a flying spaghetti monster, the absolute lack of evidence for it's existence means only a fool is going to just accept it as being so.

It would seem us 'atheists' just lack the belief in the flying spaghetti monster that you accept for no good reason whatsoever. Provide some evidence, we change our tune.

----

Btw, evolution is a fact. I have already provided you the evidence you asked for - but you then did a swift vanishing act. It is not a guess, whether educated or otherwise, but an undeniable fact. K?

 

[Cris]

Light,

Only if you accept the deductive reasoning behind an impersonal universe

What does that mean?

- by your definition of atheism

It’s not my particular definition it is how atheism is defined.

you would expect an atheist to sit on the fence because deductive reasoning is required to either be fixed in an impersonal concept of the universe or a personal one

You seem to be continually missing the point here. It isn’t a matter of choice but a matter of evidence. Both deductive and inductive reasoning depend on evidence, and the theist claims don’t provide any. As snakelord implies, the god concept is just another fantasy identical in nature to any other fictional imaginative silliness. The presentation of any evidence might change its category.

But there is never any need to make a choice in the absence of evidence.

- but you see atheists staunchly at the blockades of evolution,

And rightly so since evolution is fact and there are vast amounts of evidence for the various evolutionary theories.

the big bang theory,

I don’t support BB theory. The evidence indicates it is currently broken.

etc etc and so many other ontologies backed by deductive reasoning and "educated guesses".

Most of science is inductive. Perhaps you should review what is meant by the scientific method. Science is not about ‘educated guesses’.

 

[lightgigantic]

deductive knowledge (as opposed to inductive knowledge) is where you observe some phenomena and extrapolate that to a wider context - the very fact that science is constantly changing its established truths (like for instance the acceptance and now rejection of the big bang theory - not just that but virtually the whole approach to science gets re-written every 40 years - how is that possible unless it is heavily reliant on deductive reasoning?) indicates that despite an emphasis on an inductive model, deductive reasoning is innvolved.

I have added snakelord to my ignore list (for personal as opposed to philosophical reasons) so I am not sure what he is exactly saying, but I haven't mentioned anything about the socalled fiction of religion, I am just talking about the idea that design indicates sentient intelligence.

The point is that an atheist doesn't accept the deductive evidence of a created universe because they are established in another deductive model (ie an impersonal universe) which is diametrically opposed.

 

[Cris]

Light,

The point is that an atheist doesn't accept the deductive evidence of a created universe because they are established in another deductive model (ie an impersonal universe) which is diametrically opposed.

But there is no deductive evidence of a created universe. Did you have anything specific in mind? There is evidence of complexity but that doesn’t imply design as evolution has demonstrated.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fact - New York's utility system was designed by sentient intelligence
Fact - Compared to NYC's utility system, the universe has utility systems that are at least 1000000 times more complex (IMHO)
Question - why does the utility system of NYC require a designer while the universe does not?

Remember this is just a deductive basis, not an inductive one.

To counter this you cling to evolution, which is a diametrically opposed but nonetheless deductive model of design in the universe.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'd answer, but it seems I've made an enemy of the religious once again

Ah well, there's always Woody to pick on I guess, even though his verbal crap smells even worse than most.

 

[KennyJC]

I think the plan is that theists will continue to ignore atheists when they bring forward facts and evidence to support their claims. The result will be that theists will enjoy a forum without fact and converse with those who share their fantasies.

I have now today twice witnessed theists banning atheists for no other reason than they are annoyed that they can not reply with evidence in a subject so important to them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Placing someone on an ignore list has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with maintaining a sense of self control so ideas can be examined rather than slinking into torrents of coarse language and insult - What's the point of having an intelligent discussion with someone who is just out to bring the topic for discussion down to a sub-human battle of wills?

The phenomena, however, is not just isolated to atheists or theists - it is isolated to fanatics - regardless of one's take on a subject there is no good reason to violate the principles of civilised discussion

 

[looking_forward]

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible; trying to find proof that god, like the monster, does not exist is unrealistic since the universe is so big and u can not prove a universal negative. However, if you start by not believeing in god, and wait for some proof of god (which by the way should be clear as day since he supposedly wants us to follow him so much), everything makes much more sense. Its like being innocent before proven guilty, or in god's case, imaginary until proven real.

 

[Cris]

Light,

Fact - New York's utility system was designed by sentient intelligence

Well almost. It evolved over time from a history of many thousands of years of simpler systems. Like absolutely anything you can name everything is the result of an evolutionary process. Man’s intelligence is simply one component in such processes. For example could a primitive cave-man have designed the NY utility system from scratch? You see the point I hope that evolutionary processes are the primary framework in which we all operate.

Fact - Compared to NYC's utility system, the universe has utility systems that are at least 1000000 times more complex (IMHO)

Well not really. The universe is primarily a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces that cause fundamental particles to combine in certain ways. These natural dynamic processes operating over billions of years result in what we see today. I don’t see any need for sentience for all that to occur. And I don’t remember seeing any utility like objects out there the last time I looked through a telescope.

Perhaps you should more carefully define what you mean by complexity.

 

[lightgigantic]

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible; trying to find proof that god, like the monster, does not exist is unrealistic since the universe is so big and u can not prove a universal negative. However, if you start by not believeing in god, and wait for some proof of god (which by the way should be clear as day since he supposedly wants us to follow him so much), everything makes much more sense. Its like being innocent before proven guilty, or in god's case, imaginary until proven real.

Well we are not talking about flying spaghetti monsters we are talking about the deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence (a general principle that one can apply to the universe). If you accept that blind belief exists you must also accept that the dualistic opposite of that also exists (ie blind disbelief - disbelieving things for no good reason)

My point is that atheists disregard this deductive evidence (which is actually the preliminary foundation for making progress on the path towards understanding god) in favour of another deductive evidence - in otherwords an atheist is not neutral because they opt for one deductive knowledge over another, which in turn shapes their entire ontological perspective.

 

[SnakeLord]

Not that he's listening, but what the hell...

deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence

Design certainly would indicate some form of intelligence. What's been 'designed'? Seems you supplied yourself an answer first and then molded everything to that answer.

And you dare whinge about people not being "neutral"? Hypocrite.

Have I earnt myself a double ignore now?

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

Well almost. It evolved over time from a history of many thousands of years of simpler systems. Like absolutely anything you can name everything is the result of an evolutionary process. Man’s intelligence is simply one component in such processes. For example could a primitive cave-man have designed the NY utility system from scratch?

Well you could even take a spear made from a branch with a stone head fastened to it and compare that to the universe. They may not design very complicated things but still the general priciple of design equaling sentient intelligence is constant.

You see the point I hope that evolutionary processes are the primary framework in which we all operate.

Evolutionary processes are necessary to design because we are imperfect - if you take god as a designer (all perfect knowledge) evolution of ideas becomes obsolete. Ideas only evolve as new knowledge of variables comes to hand

Well not really. The universe is primarily a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces that cause fundamental particles to combine in certain ways. These natural dynamic processes operating over billions of years result in what we see today. I don’t see any need for sentience for all that to occur. And I don’t remember seeing any utility like objects out there the last time I looked through a telescope.

So the question is that if you see a model of the universe why do you think that the model must have a designer (and not the result of a dynamic process of attractive and repulsive forces over millions of years)?
In other words what is the essential element that is so intrinsic to less complex things that makes them require a designer that is absent in more complex things? (Its not like the model of the universe was made from articles that were shipped in from outside the universe)

Perhaps you should more carefully define what you mean by complexity.

Complexity? Well a stone spear represents one level of complexity, the NYC utility system another and the universe as a functional operation is another - a complex unit serves a function that is greater than its raw elements (like a wooden table is more complex than a tree even though both are made of the same essential ingredient because a table has a functional purpose that a tree does not) - similarly a primitive spear is more than just a piece of stone next to a piece of wood and the utility system of NYC is more than a collection of cables, pipes and roads and the universe is more than a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces - if you have never seen utility like objects in space (I don't know what you make of astral cycles then - they don't seem particularly random - like the sun always rises in the east - something you wouldn't expect to see for a random occurence ...) maybe you should try looking in a microscope- complexity indicates order - order indicates intelligence.

 

[Cris]

Light,

we are talking about the deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence (a general principle that one can apply to the universe).

No that doesn’t follow. You must first establish that the universe was designed and you haven’t done that yet.

If you accept that blind belief exists you must also accept that the dualistic opposite of that also exists (ie blind disbelief - disbelieving things for no good reason)

No. This is a serious mistake you are continuing to make and you will not make much progress until you learn this important issue. The disbelief in a proposition is NOT the same as believing it is false. I.e. disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief. Think about it for a while until it sinks in. This is key to the atheist position and you will continue to smash your ahead against brick walls until you understand this. Until you get it your arguments so far are simply gibberish.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

No that doesn’t follow. You must first establish that the universe was designed and you haven’t done that yet.

If you apply the general principles you are establishing here in other situations you end up with an absurd world view. If you see "design" you think "designer" - there are many things in archeology that we don't know who designed them or how they were designed, but we nonetheless attribute them to intelligence - we have no evidence of anything of complexity that is without design (except for the universe - which would beg the question) - if you look at the body of a bird and don't think it has a designer, but automatically acknowledge that a crayon picture of a bird made up of 5 lines has a designer then you have to take a serious look at the general principles you are applying to come to such a conclusion

No. This is a serious mistake you are continuing to make and you will not make much progress until you learn this important issue. The disbelief in a proposition is NOT the same as believing it is false. I.e. disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief. Think about it for a while until it sinks in. This is key to the atheist position and you will continue to smash your ahead against brick walls until you understand this. Until you get it your arguments so far are simply gibberish.

I was refering to the challenge about blind belief by sayingthe opposite also must exist, blind disbelief - for instance suppose someone is convinced that all water is poisoned so they eventually drop dead from dehydration - a person who goes around disbelieving things for no good reason is diametrically opposed to the person who goes around blindly believing things, but it is blind nonetheless

- Now cris, you may say that you don't belong to that catergory, after all it is a reply to a statement you didn't even make, but there is never only one extreme, there is always two extremes to every circumstance.

My contention with your take on atheism as that it is not the natural neutral ground in contemplating the universe because you take shelter of deductive knowledge that is diametrically opposed to the deductive knowledge of a personal universe -

 

[Cris]

Light,

Well you could even take a spear made from a branch with a stone head fastened to it and compare that to the universe. They may not design very complicated things but still the general priciple of design equaling sentient intelligence is constant.

But the complexity of the NY utility system or a computer would be outside their ability without the benefits of evolutionary progress. I.e. we know of no instance of intelligence creating something complex that is outside of an evolutionary process.

Evolutionary processes are necessary to design because we are imperfect - if you take god as a designer (all perfect knowledge) evolution of ideas becomes obsolete. Ideas only evolve as new knowledge of variables comes to hand

But the creationist concept that the universe was designed is based on the idea that anything complex is the result of intelligence and then man is quoted as an example of such an intelligent designer. Now that you agree that our intelligence only operates within an evolutionary framework you now have no evidential precedent to speculate that the universe was the result of ID. The only evidence we do have is that everything that we know is the result of evolutionary processes.

The introduction of the qualification of perfection leaves you absolutely no point of comparison and you are reduced to the unsupported speculation that “God did it”. What example can you show of anything that was the result of a perfect intelligence?

In other words what is the essential element that is so intrinsic to less complex things that makes them require a designer that is absent in more complex things? (Its not like the model of the universe was made from articles that were shipped in from outside the universe)

Intent. And most of your description on complexity implies intent.

if you have never seen utility like objects in space (I don't know what you make of astral cycles then - they don't seem particularly random - like the sun always rises in the east - something you wouldn't expect to see for a random occurence ...) maybe you should try looking in a microscope-

That simply returns us to the basic forces again – try gravity for a start.

complexity indicates order - order indicates intelligence.

Absolute nonsense. Look at a snowflake under a microscope, beautiful order and symmetry and perfectly natural. Look at the incredible ordered atomic structure of a diamond. And there are endless examples of perfect order without recourse to intelligence.

 

[Cris]

Light,

I was refering to the challenge about blind belief by sayingthe opposite also must exist, blind disbelief - for instance suppose someone is convinced that all water is poisoned so they eventually drop dead from dehydration - a person who goes around disbelieving things for no good reason is diametrically opposed to the person who goes around blindly believing things, but it is blind nonetheless

Read your example again more carefully. That is not an example of disbelief but a belief in a particular condition. Again disbelief is not the opposite of belief. The opposite of belief is another belief that the proposition is false.

My contention with your take on atheism as that it is not the natural neutral ground in contemplating the universe because you take shelter of deductive knowledge that is diametrically opposed to the deductive knowledge of a personal universe –

Not really. What the atheist assumes is the default position that everything is the result of natural phenomena because no one has shown anything else. The onus is entirely on you for proof if you want anyone to believe there is an alternative.