Atheism = arrogance

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 24, 2015, 12:56:06 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 23, 2015, 12:25:55 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 23, 2015, 10:18:57 AM

AusGeoff, why are you so convinced that God does not exist?

Put simply, there is no viable evidence to support the claim—of gods existing—that satisfies my personal requirements to believe in something.

So, basically, if you don't like the explanation then it's absolutely false on all levels.

No offense, but how can you make a judgment call of that caliber on behalf of everyone? Are you the absolute authority on all knowledge?

All you do is prove the thread title correct. Atheism = arrogance.

One doesn't have to have all knowledge to make a pragmatic judgement call.

On the one hand you have a positive claim (theism and deism), that are based on no physical evidence or logical thought process.
On the other, you have a neutral claim, that requires physical proof or logical thought processes in order to move from the neutral position.

If anything, your retort of "You have to know everything to disprove theism" is of monumental, staggering arrogance.

Except that it isn't, it is nothing more than an honest position.  There are degrees of certainty that can be easily justified such as the position, "I am certain enough of the non-existence of God that I am comfortable being a homosexual." or "I am certain enough that God does not exist, that I will not live for the promise of an afterlife."

When your position is, "I am certain God does not exist." you are treading on ground that you cannot possibly maintain.  All someone has to do is ask you, "How do you know that?" and watch the logical construct of your position crumble.  That is all I am saying.  The same applies to people who claim with absolute certainty that God does exist, until, you know, God makes it rain fortune cookies messages saying, "I am God and I exist." or something else of that ilk that can be empirically documented and confound any other explanation (although even then, one could claim that it was an advanced extraterrestial civilization and also be correct).

I feel that this is a misuse of mathematics. A mathematician can prove the non-existence of a mathematical object in terms of the axioms of that particular mathematical branch. Outside of mathematics the proof and the object (or non-object) are meaningless.

True, it was just meant to be illustration. You do need to take certain axioms for any field of study (eg: 'adhering to logic', if you define God as beyond that, there's no way to say anything). Generally though, the principles that work in maths work elsewhere.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on March 24, 2015, 06:07:37 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 24, 2015, 12:56:06 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 23, 2015, 12:25:55 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 23, 2015, 10:18:57 AM

AusGeoff, why are you so convinced that God does not exist?

Put simply, there is no viable evidence to support the claim—of gods existing—that satisfies my personal requirements to believe in something.

So, basically, if you don't like the explanation then it's absolutely false on all levels.

No offense, but how can you make a judgment call of that caliber on behalf of everyone? Are you the absolute authority on all knowledge?

All you do is prove the thread title correct. Atheism = arrogance.

One doesn't have to have all knowledge to make a pragmatic judgement call.

On the one hand you have a positive claim (theism and deism), that are based on no physical evidence or logical thought process.
On the other, you have a neutral claim, that requires physical proof or logical thought processes in order to move from the neutral position.

If anything, your retort of "You have to know everything to disprove theism" is of monumental, staggering arrogance.

Except that it isn't, it is nothing more than an honest position.  There are degrees of certainty that can be easily justified such as the position, "I am certain enough of the non-existence of God that I am comfortable being a homosexual." or "I am certain enough that God does not exist, that I will not live for the promise of an afterlife."

When your position is, "I am certain God does not exist." you are treading on ground that you cannot possibly maintain.  All someone has to do is ask you, "How do you know that?" and watch the logical construct of your position crumble.  That is all I am saying.  The same applies to people who claim with absolute certainty that God does exist, until, you know, God makes it rain fortune cookies messages saying, "I am God and I exist." or something else of that ilk that can be empirically documented and confound any other explanation (although even then, one could claim that it was an advanced extraterrestial civilization and also be correct).

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

One could, and many have, argued that point. The atheist has yet to prove that such an argument has any more validity than the theist's argument. Just sayin', ya know.

Quote

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

One could, and many have, argued that point. The atheist has yet to prove that such an argument has any more validity than the theist's argument. Just sayin' ya know.

Until some sort of evidence that indicates a being that we would call a deity emerges, atheism will continue to be a logical starting point, and religion the illogical positive claim. Comparing them in terms of validity of belief is a flat out false equivalence fallacy.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 24, 2015, 07:42:43 AM

Quote

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

One could, and many have, argued that point. The atheist has yet to prove that such an argument has any more validity than the theist's argument. Just sayin' ya know.

Until some sort of evidence that indicates a being that we would call a deity emerges, atheism will continue to be a logical starting point, and religion the illogical positive claim. Comparing them in terms of validity of belief is a flat out false equivalence fallacy.

Aside from the fact that 90% of the world disagrees with you (more or less), your argument, or perhaps the best term is non-argument, isn't convincing anyone who isn't already an atheist. A theist will simply point to the fact that something has never been known to come from nothing. This sort of thing does not occur in the real world. Ergo, the world itself (ie, the universe and all that therein lies) didn't just come from nothing. This is clearly not an intent to prove any particular deity, but only that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on March 24, 2015, 07:46:45 AM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 24, 2015, 07:42:43 AM

Quote

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

One could, and many have, argued that point. The atheist has yet to prove that such an argument has any more validity than the theist's argument. Just sayin' ya know.

Until some sort of evidence that indicates a being that we would call a deity emerges, atheism will continue to be a logical starting point, and religion the illogical positive claim. Comparing them in terms of validity of belief is a flat out false equivalence fallacy.

Aside from the fact that 90% of the world disagrees with you (more or less), your argument, or perhaps the best term is non-argument, isn't convincing anyone who isn't already an atheist. A theist will simply point to the fact that something has never been known to come from nothing. This sort of thing does not occur in the real world. Ergo, the world itself (ie, the universe and all that therein lies) didn't just come from nothing. This is clearly not an intent to prove any particular deity, but only that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

It doesn't prove a being created anything. It's just proof we don't know the origins of the universe. But we know a great deal more today than man did thousands of years ago when he had to make up gods to explain that which he couldn't explain logically.

And based on what we know about the cosmos and life today....atheism is indeed the logical starting point.

Aside from the fact that 90% of the world disagrees with you (more or less),

Generally less. Closer to 60/70%: and most of those people disagree with you too.

A theist will simply point to the fact that something has never been known to come from nothing. This sort of thing does not occur in the real world. Ergo, the world itself (ie, the universe and all that therein lies) didn't just come from nothing. This is clearly not an intent to prove any particular deity, but only that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

Care to clarify where you get 'Being' from?

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

Except that they are.  The place where they are not equal is in the burden of proof.  Obviously an atheist cannot prove definitively that God exists, and so it is incumbent on the theist defend their positive claim; skepticism appears to be the most logical position for someone investigating claims of the supernatural.  That being said, it is still dishonest to claim, with 100% certainty, that God does not exist.  Even the most "militant" atheists, such as the 4 horsemen, do not claim definitively that God does not exist, and in fact go out of their way to clarify that the truth of the matter is unknowable.  They claim you are foolish to believe something on bad evidence, or that believing in such a construct is more destructive than constructive, or even, in the case of Hitchens, the anti-theist, that even if the theistic position were true, he would behave as if it were not, because it is wicked and immoral.  It serves no purpose to claim that the atheistic position is 100% true except to create a negative image supporting the thread title.

It doesn't prove a being created anything. It's just proof we don't know the origins of the universe. But we know a great deal more today than man did thousands of years ago when he had to make up gods to explain that which he couldn't explain logically.

And based on what we know about the cosmos and life today....atheism is indeed the logical starting point.

Again, that is a non-argument that proves nothing. It simply makes a statement and asserts it as fact with no proof. Since something cannot come from nothing, and nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the only logical thing is to assume that an Intelligence created the Universe. Given that said Universe is an ordered thing, unless you want to assume that a Stupidity can create ordered things, which I am not inclined to assume, then you have to assume that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 24, 2015, 07:55:31 AM

Aside from the fact that 90% of the world disagrees with you (more or less),

Generally less. Closer to 60/70%: and most of those people disagree with you too.

Given that Islam is growing as a religion by leaps and bounds I would say the number is much higher than 60-70 percent. And given that about half of Buddhists are theistic ones... and that Christianity is still growing more than it is losing, because of population in the Global South, and due to increased believership in former Communist countries such as Russia... etc, etc, I might be willing to go with 80-85 percent...

Quote

A theist will simply point to the fact that something has never been known to come from nothing. This sort of thing does not occur in the real world. Ergo, the world itself (ie, the universe and all that therein lies) didn't just come from nothing. This is clearly not an intent to prove any particular deity, but only that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

Care to clarify where you get 'Being' from?

It would have to be a being of some sort. If you get into pluralities, you run into all kinds of philosophical problems that can only be resolved with a singularity. We'd be here all week if I really got into the subject, but then, there you are.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on March 24, 2015, 07:27:31 AM

Apples and hand grenades.

Within the hypothetical realm of infinite probabilities, sure, no definitive statement can ever be made about anything. For instance, many of the scientific laws that every human observes and utilizes every single day, technically have yet to be proven. But pragmatically, and honestly, I can say that Newtonian Laws of Motion work on the local scale, the Laws of thermodynamics can be verified with very little effort, etc.

So is it with any religious claim. Yes, in the abstract, absolute knowledge cannot be claimed as to the validity of any deity. In the pragmatic, demonstrable world, it is a different story. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to even suggest a guiding intelligence or a moral absolute, there is no reason to suppose a deity in the first place.

It is a false equivalence fallacy to claim that an atheistic and theistic position are similarly illogical.

Except that they are.  The place where they are not equal is in the burden of proof.  Obviously an atheist cannot prove definitively that God exists, and so it is incumbent on the theist defend their positive claim; skepticism appears to be the most logical position for someone investigating claims of the supernatural.  That being said, it is still dishonest to claim, with 100% certainty, that God does not exist.  Even the most "militant" atheists, such as the 4 horsemen, do not claim definitively that God does not exist, and in fact go out of their way to clarify that the truth of the matter is unknowable.  They claim you are foolish to believe something on bad evidence, or that believing in such a construct is more destructive than constructive, or even, in the case of Hitchens, the anti-theist, that even if the theistic position were true, he would behave as if it were not, because it is wicked and immoral.  It serves no purpose to claim that the atheistic position is 100% true except to create a negative image supporting the thread title.

I think you are arguing against a point that no one is making.

Again, that is a non-argument that proves nothing. It simply makes a statement and asserts it as fact with no proof. Since something cannot come from nothing, and nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the only logical thing is to assume that an Intelligence created the Universe. Given that said Universe is an ordered thing, unless you want to assume that a Stupidity can create ordered things, which I am not inclined to assume, then you have to assume that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

You may assume that.........but it's not required that everyone does. You're making a leap that doesn't need to be made.

Nothing suggests an intelligent being created anything. We still have a lot to learn about the origins of the universe but there's been nothing that shows a sentient, intelligent, self aware being is behind it.

Quote

Again, that is a non-argument that proves nothing. It simply makes a statement and asserts it as fact with no proof. Since something cannot come from nothing, and nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the only logical thing is to assume that an Intelligence created the Universe. Given that said Universe is an ordered thing, unless you want to assume that a Stupidity can create ordered things, which I am not inclined to assume, then you have to assume that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

You may assume that.........but it's not required that everyone does. You're making a leap that doesn't need to be made.

Nothing suggests an intelligent being created anything. We still have a lot to learn about the origins of the universe but there's been nothing that shows a sentient, intelligent, self aware being is behind it.

To not assume it is to be illogical, which you are free to be. But again, to assume that something cannot come from nothing EXCEPT in the case of the universe is illogical in the extreme.

Quote from: Umurweird on March 24, 2015, 08:22:49 AM

Quote

Again, that is a non-argument that proves nothing. It simply makes a statement and asserts it as fact with no proof. Since something cannot come from nothing, and nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the only logical thing is to assume that an Intelligence created the Universe. Given that said Universe is an ordered thing, unless you want to assume that a Stupidity can create ordered things, which I am not inclined to assume, then you have to assume that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

You may assume that.........but it's not required that everyone does. You're making a leap that doesn't need to be made.

Nothing suggests an intelligent being created anything. We still have a lot to learn about the origins of the universe but there's been nothing that shows a sentient, intelligent, self aware being is behind it.

To not assume it is to be illogical, which you are free to be. But again, to assume that something cannot come from nothing EXCEPT in the case of the universe is illogical in the extreme.

If you could point out where I said something can come from nothing, I'd appreciate it.

It's your leap that this something has to be a "being" of intelligence I take issue with. There is nothing to suggest that is true. And it's certainly not illogical to not believe in an intelligent creator being.

If you could point out where I said something can come from nothing, I'd appreciate it.

It's your leap that this something has to be a "being" of intelligence I take issue with. There is nothing to suggest that is true. And it's certainly not illogical to not believe in an intelligent creator being.

It would be entertaining for you to inform us of what could create something from nothing.

Quote from: Umurweird on March 24, 2015, 08:30:40 AM

If you could point out where I said something can come from nothing, I'd appreciate it.

It's your leap that this something has to be a "being" of intelligence I take issue with. There is nothing to suggest that is true. And it's certainly not illogical to not believe in an intelligent creator being.

It would be entertaining for you to inform us of what could create something from nothing.

If I knew how the big bang happened and what led to it....I'd be able to inform you. But I don't.

There are a ton of theories. From multiverse theories to big collapses and a forever long cycle of big bang to big collapse to big bang. Just recently some scientist figured out the math behind showing something came from nothing.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/

They could be on the right path or maybe not.

But nothing, at all, suggest it's logical to believe an intelligent being did this.

It would be far more entertaining if you, ignoring scripture, logically explained how a sentient, all knowing all powerful being created all that we see.

Again, that is a non-argument that proves nothing. It simply makes a statement and asserts it as fact with no proof.

Are you saying that we don't know more than we did thousands of years ago?  That seems a pretty safe assertion to make.  We know that people will also create religions when confronted with something that they do not comprehend, like with cargo cults, so he seems to be on pretty safe ground.  It definitely is more logical than the theistic position since it accurately describes the world and evidence.

Since something cannot come from nothing,

We know that thermodynamically this is true, not that this is true spatially.

and nothing existed before the Big Bang,

This is an example of a claim with no evidence.

then the only logical thing is to assume that an Intelligence created the Universe.

Since your premises are faulty, so is your conclusion.

Given that said Universe is an ordered thing, unless you want to assume that a Stupidity

The laws of physics are "a Stupidity" [sic]?

can create ordered things, which I am not inclined to assume, then you have to assume that a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived created the universe.

Again, faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

If I knew how the big bang happened and what led to it....I'd be able to inform you. But I don't.

There are a ton of theories. From multiverse theories to big collapses and a forever long cycle of big bang to big collapse to big bang. Just recently some scientist figured out the math behind showing something came from nothing.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/22/is-all-the-universe-from-nothing/

They could be on the right path or maybe not.

But nothing, at all, suggest it's logical to believe an intelligent being did this.

It would be far more entertaining if you, ignoring scripture, logically explained how a sentient, all knowing all powerful being created all that we see.

Scripture is entirely unnecessary, since all it does is say "it happened." It really doesn't really give much in the way of detail. "Let there be light" is just Divine fiat.Its not particularly descriptive, nor does it need to be.

The simple fact of the matter is that something cannot come from nothing. And any theory is a theory. And arguing that the existence of G-d is less relevant a theory than the ones you suggested simply shows your own bias. Even assuming that you have a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Collapses, what started the cycle? The fact is, we could go on like this forever. We are not going to convince each other. But fundamentally, the atheist is stuck in the hole of not being able to explain how he is here. The theist does not have that problem.

RAMA SET, I have an appointment to get to. I'll respond to you when I get a chance, but since scientists say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, even if something was here before it, what created that? you still have to ask yourself what created it. See above.

But fundamentally, the atheist is stuck in the hole of not being able to explain how he is here. The theist does not have that problem.

The theist has the same problem but covers it up using an invisible deity.

The atheist accepts he may never know and knows he/she is going to die some day and end up in the same place he/she was before birth...nothingness.

To not assume it is to be illogical, which you are free to be. But again, to assume that something cannot come from nothing EXCEPT in the case of the universe is illogical in the extreme.

This only makes sense if you're saying the alternatives are, and are only:

1. Sentient, intelligent Being.
2. Nothing.

Are you saying those are the only possible options and, if so, how do you justify that claim?

The simple fact of the matter is that something cannot come from nothing.

Again you are making a claim you cannot support.

And any theory is a theory.

This is a meaningless tautology.  Care to explain?

And arguing that the existence of G-d is less relevant a theory than the ones you suggested simply shows your own bias.

Umurweird just cited an example of a logical process, involving mathematics to try and unpack viable models leading to the spontaneous generation of a big bang scenario.  You have presented an opinion and an outdated philisopical argument. 

Even assuming that you have a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Collapses, what started the cycle? The fact is, we could go on like this forever. We are not going to convince each other. But fundamentally, the atheist is stuck in the hole of not being able to explain how he is here. The theist does not have that problem.

The infinite regression does apply to God, unless you want to sit on the irrational position that God, for some unspecified reason, can exist forever, but a universe, for some unspecified reason, can not.

RAMA SET, I have an appointment to get to. I'll respond to you when I get a chance, but since scientists say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, even if something was here before it, what created that? you still have to ask yourself what created it. See above.

I think I just addressed this in the preceding paragraph, so maybe you don't need to respond to my previous post.

Quote from: Umurweird on March 24, 2015, 08:30:40 AM

If you could point out where I said something can come from nothing, I'd appreciate it.

It's your leap that this something has to be a "being" of intelligence I take issue with. There is nothing to suggest that is true. And it's certainly not illogical to not believe in an intelligent creator being.

It would be entertaining for you to inform us of what could create something from nothing.

Where did God come from?

Where did God come from?

There's the rub.

Of course, you could argue that the Universe made itself, but that in and of itself would posit the Universe as divine. In other words, the idea that the Universe itself is the Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. And who is to say that said argument (the Ontological) is outdated? That is an assumption. Just because you make said assumption does not imply that it is logical.

And you cannot support any claim that says something CAN come from nothing. At best, the two of us are stuck saying we don't know, so perhaps the best claim would be agnosticism. But I think that ultimately, it is a stronger argument that things come from things, rather than that they come from nothing, since in human experience, they always have.

Of course, you could argue that the Universe made itself, but that in and of itself would posit the Universe as divine. In other words, the idea that the Universe itself is the Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. And who is to say that said argument (the Ontological) is outdated? That is an assumption. Just because you make said assumption does not imply that it is logical.

And you cannot support any claim that says something CAN come from nothing. At best, the two of us are stuck saying we don't know, so perhaps the best claim would be agnosticism. But I think that ultimately, it is a stronger argument that things come from things, rather than that they come from nothing, since in human experience, they always have.

What if we posit a universe that is eternal in the past?  Solves the whole creation ex nihilo issue doesn't it?  I tend to prefer this as an answer than having to deal with the ex nihilo can of worms. 

As for gravitating toward an answer because it fits more neatly in to the human scope of experience, I think this is lazy, especially when dealing with something like the beginning of the universe. 

The "Ham Sandwich which is greater than any that can be conceived of" argument you are so fond of has been rebutted by more than a few philosophers throughout history, so although you are fond of it, it is still a weak premise to base a belief in God on.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 24, 2015, 05:36:36 PM

Of course, you could argue that the Universe made itself, but that in and of itself would posit the Universe as divine. In other words, the idea that the Universe itself is the Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. And who is to say that said argument (the Ontological) is outdated? That is an assumption. Just because you make said assumption does not imply that it is logical.

And you cannot support any claim that says something CAN come from nothing. At best, the two of us are stuck saying we don't know, so perhaps the best claim would be agnosticism. But I think that ultimately, it is a stronger argument that things come from things, rather than that they come from nothing, since in human experience, they always have.

What if we posit a universe that is eternal in the past?  Solves the whole creation ex nihilo issue doesn't it?  I tend to prefer this as an answer than having to deal with the ex nihilo can of worms.

You could posit that. And one is free to argue the point. In other words, the point is unanswerable. We're back to agnosticism.

As for gravitating toward an answer because it fits more neatly in to the human scope of experience, I think this is lazy, especially when dealing with something like the beginning of the universe.

Your opinion is precisely that, your opinion. Only really relevant to you.

The "Ham Sandwich which is greater than any that can be conceived of" argument you are so fond of has been rebutted by more than a few philosophers throughout history, so although you are fond of it, it is still a weak premise to base a belief in God on.

And never really satisfactorily rebutted, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

You could posit that. And one is free to argue the point. In other words, the point is unanswerable. We're back to agnosticism.

I am fine with that.  I identify as an agnostic anyway.  Does this mean that you will now as well?

Your opinion is precisely that, your opinion. Only really relevant to you.

You so internet tough. 

And never really satisfactorily rebutted, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

Well, obviously not satisfactory to you, but considering I have never seen a Christian apologist use it makes me think that you are in the minority.  No offense, but I will take Hume and Kant over you any day of the week and twice on the Sabbath.  Oy vey!

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 24, 2015, 07:10:45 PM

You could posit that. And one is free to argue the point. In other words, the point is unanswerable. We're back to agnosticism.

I am fine with that.  I identify as an agnostic anyway.  Does this mean that you will now as well?

Not at all. But, at least we've gotten you down from atheism.

Quote

Your opinion is precisely that, your opinion. Only really relevant to you.

You so internet tough. 

Quote

And never really satisfactorily rebutted, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

Well, obviously not satisfactory to you, but considering I have never seen a Christian apologist use it makes me think that you are in the minority.  No offense, but I will take Hume and Kant over you any day of the week and twice on the Sabbath.  Oy vey!

Hume has always been irrelevant to me. I thought he was an idiot the first time I read him, and my opinion never changed thereafter. Kant was only marginally better. So, take who you will, but your opinion has no more or less value than mine. I'll take the good Archbishop Anselm, thank you. He is a Christian apologist who used it, by the way. And I am not Christian, so there you are.

I identify as an agnostic anyway.

But, at least we've gotten you down from atheism.

A slow clap for you sir.  It takes real chutzpah to not change the mind of someone from a position they already hold.

Hume has always been irrelevant to me. I thought he was an idiot the first time I read him, and my opinion never changed thereafter. Kant was only marginally better.

So you are not very adept in your chosen field of philosophy, I see.

So, take who you will, but your opinion has no more or less value than mine.

I agree, but I will say that your opinion has less value than Hume or Kant, and I doubt many aside from your wife would disagree.

I'll take the good Archbishop Anselm, thank you. He is a Christian apologist who used it, by the way.

Who I have never seen, by the way.

And I am not Christian, so there you are.

Irrelevant. 

Quote

The "Ham Sandwich which is greater than any that can be conceived of" argument you are so fond of has been rebutted by more than a few philosophers throughout history, so although you are fond of it, it is still a weak premise to base a belief in God on.

And never really satisfactorily rebutted, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

According to you. When you have an emotional attachment to the conclusion of the argument, you're going to be less willing to relinquish it: you should agree with that, whether or not you think the argument holds.
The ontological class of arguments can fall for several reasons. There's one set that rely on 'greatness' to be a measure of something objectively that transcends and predates even God: absurd. Then there's the like of Anselm's which tries to go from "the idea of God exists in the mind," (as ideas are all that can exist there) to "the actual God exists in reality," with no explanation: the best you could say is that 'the idea of God exists' which no one denies. Then there's a whole host which are only relevant theoretically: about as meaningful as assuming there's a biggest number, and showing that it's one (which can be done quite simply). Start with faulty assumptions, you get a wrong answer.
And not one person has ever shown a trait of the 'greatest possible...' is something as basic as sentience (and I'd argue that it's impossible to show that), even if you grant it has to exist. That renders the point moot, in any case.

But, at least we've gotten you down from atheism.

Also, outside of what is essentially technical jargon that noone speaking outside of a classroom is concerned with, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. This has been pointed out several times. You can't force your definition on others when your definition is only meant to be used in a classroom and similarly technical settings.