South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 17, 2019, 09:29:00 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

When one is sceptical about Scepticality

 (Read 8038 times)
Description: Time to test my atheist believes
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2010, 00:41:02 AM »

If there are something like a creator of the universe it would most definitely not be constraint by the limitations of our observable universe. Your referance to inside and outside is way too simplistic.
 

If you say so. I don't really know the creator that well, nor where he can or cannot survive.
Perhaps you should first define this creator in terms of his properties and abilities and then we can take it from there.

Mintaka


Yes, I agree with Mintaka on this point. And Coenie777, if your creator is not within our observable universe, what is the point of theorizing about such a creator. We might as well postulate a theory that says our entire universe is actually an atom on a blade of grass in another universe - since we have no measurable means of validating this theory it becomes null from inception.

Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2010, 00:50:45 AM »

Oh and by the way StevoMuso, is thin air not where we find all theories?  Huh?
Actually I was joking. We obviously do not get theories out of thin air - only believers do that. We usually formulate theories out of observable evidence. We then test these theories in a rigorous set of tests to see if they hold their own. So in order to have a valid theory, it HAS to be based on observable and testable evidence. This is why I am an atheist and not an agnostic - there is no observable or testable evidence for an invisible Being floating around the universe, pre- or post-BB ... none whatsoever. Agnosticism, to me, is almost as ridiculous as credulity.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3114



« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2010, 13:16:27 PM »

This is why I dislike thought exercises like this. They do nothing to inform. From a realistic perspective, there's no way to know, even if we could "see" the truth, the limitations of our perception and ape-brains may make it impossible to grasp nonetheless. Does this open up a crack for god to exist? Sure, it also opens a crack for pretty much anything to exist.

What happens "before" a singularity? I dunno. If, outside of what we recognize as a universe (parallel, outside, inside, occupying the same space, higher dimension, doesn't matter) time does not exist, then it's clear that the concept of a "cause" becomes irrelevant. The word "cause" is linked to time in a very intimate way. The thing I've been thinking is, can one have a cause if there is no time? This is actually the question isn't it?

Either way, yes, I think we "could" have a creator (bare with me) in a "metaverse" with causal properties. We have proof that evolution can form self-aware intelligent beings. It's quite possible that a creator could be evolved, and become intelligent enough to create new universes. It would be speculative of how much control that creator would have of those universes, but nonetheless. The creator hypothesis, in my view, IS possible, we may someday become creators ourselves. However....

In a feat of fairy-dust induction, I reason the following: When the oceans were the end of our universe we said "There be dragons", when we expanded our horizons further we thought "If we go too far, we'll fall off the end!", when we circumnavigated the world, we said "it's round, but up there's heaven, and down there's hell". Then we went up, and (some way) down, and we now understood what was there. Now he look at the next great (much greater) barrier to our perception and say "there be dragons there!". What if the truth is much simpler?

You go around the world and find.... more sea and rock. You go up you find.... more space, more planets, more stars. I think it would be reasonable that our minds now postulate. "Beyond our universe, there must be more universes". It is noteworthy that we never found anything to break the pattern. We've always discovered just "more of the same" when we were expecting "dragons".

Now, as for universes forming. In our universe matter randomly collects because of gravity, etc, and eventually stars form. We don't say "who caused that star", because we know it's just chance movements in interstellar matter that start off chain reactions. Hence, in the "metaverse", it could also just be chance events, according to the laws of that place, that set off universes to be created as the end of a series of chance events. (Not talking according to a timeline, but according to a "causality")

The problem however, remains the same, how did that place come into being? Did it "come into being" at all? Did I mention I don't like these kinds of conversations? I mean obviously I do, but at the same time I don't. grrr.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2010, 17:15:05 PM »

I'm assuming you are not kidding. The things that we can either directly sense or deduce from sensory information exist. Stuff that we can't directly sense or deduce form sensory information may or may not exist.
I wasn’t kidding.  My sense of humour doesn’t exist.  Sadly, it’s not that simple.



I think we use "cause" to mean "responsible for initiating" in this thread.
Sadly again, it’s not that simple.

I’ll say it once more in the hope that the message will be considered more carefully the second time around:  This whole discussion about “cause” and “existence” of the universe is, from start to finish, fraught with common-sense appeals that are very likely wholly inapplicable because of some considerable gaps in our knowledge.

'Luthon64
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2010, 21:06:48 PM »

My sense of humour doesn’t exist.

Awe, that sucks Sad What about Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, do you find them at all funny?
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2010, 00:24:18 AM »

The problem however, remains the same, how did that place come into being? Did it "come into being" at all? Did I mention I don't like these kinds of conversations? I mean obviously I do, but at the same time I don't. grrr.
Brilliant post BM - especially liked this
Quote
Does this open up a crack for god to exist? Sure, it also opens a crack for pretty much anything to exist.

It seems as if this kind of conversation is based on speculation, which is annoyingly untestable, but still gives plenty of fun-factor theorizing (if not argument).

Quote
What about Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, do you find them at all funny?
I certainly did, yes. And what about Gary Larson (Far Side) - more side-splitting humour for thinkers.
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2010, 00:27:57 AM »

My sense of humour doesn’t exist.
When you  say "doesn't exist" do you mean pre- or post-BB, and does the existence of "time" factor in your alleged claim for "non-existent" humour  Grin
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2010, 08:37:02 AM »

Seeing as asserting the non-existence of something for which no compelling evidence is available, be it (a, any) god or my sense of humour, constitutes a negative claim, it’s up to those who wish to assert the existence of such things to prove their positive claims.  The onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, just as it is on those proclaiming Mefiante Jollitism, not the Mefiante Dourists.

BTW, from this and my prior post, plus its various reactions, in this thread, it should be clear that HTML doesn’t do deadpan intonations or irony…

'Luthon64
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2010, 09:13:45 AM »

Seeing as asserting the non-existence of something for which no compelling evidence is available, be it (a, any) god or my sense of humour, constitutes a negative claim, it’s up to those who wish to assert the existence of such things to prove their positive claims.  The onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, just as it is on those proclaiming Mefiante Jollitism, not the Mefiante Dourists.

BTW, from this and my prior post, plus its various reactions, in this thread, it should be clear that HTML doesn’t do deadpan intonations or irony…

'Luthon64
Well this particular post has shot your "no humour" argument out of the water - HUGE LOL, nice one. I have become a firm believer in Mefiante Jollitism due to your faithful testimony. Glooory. Praise the Lard!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2010, 10:07:28 AM »

You got me there. Tongue

'Luthon64
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2010, 20:13:23 PM »

BTW, from this and my prior post, plus its various reactions, in this thread, it should be clear that HTML doesn’t do deadpan intonations or irony…

Can't believe I missed it! Embarrassed

Beginning to doubt the existence of my own sense of humour instead...
Logged
Coenie777
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2010, 22:02:46 PM »

Seeing as asserting the non-existence of something for which no compelling evidence is available, be it (a, any) god or my sense of humour, constitutes a negative claim, it’s up to those who wish to assert the existence of such things to prove their positive claims.  The onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, just as it is on those proclaiming Mefiante Jollitism, not the Mefiante Dourists.

BTW, from this and my prior post, plus its various reactions, in this thread, it should be clear that HTML doesn’t do deadpan intonations or irony…

'Luthon64

This line of thinking works great when a "believer" ask you to proof the non existance of their god. I fully agree with the line of argument in such case. However, I did not ask anyone here yet to proof my postulate of a creator, merely to indulge in the thought excersise. But I take your point.





Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2010, 22:22:01 PM »

Seeing as asserting the non-existence of something for which no compelling evidence is available, be it (a, any) god or my sense of humour, constitutes a negative claim, it’s up to those who wish to assert the existence of such things to prove their positive claims.  The onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, just as it is on those proclaiming Mefiante Jollitism, not the Mefiante Dourists.
BTW, from this and my prior post, plus its various reactions, in this thread, it should be clear that HTML doesn’t do deadpan intonations or irony…
'Luthon64
This line of thinking works great when a "believer" ask you to proof the non existance of their god. I fully agree with the line of argument in such case. However, I did not ask anyone here yet to proof my postulate of a creator, merely to indulge in the thought excersise. But I take your point.
I apologize Coenie777, but at this point we have once again gone into "tongue-in-cheek" mode, which tends to lighten some of these lengthy debates on untestable theories. We are joking bro, and I'm pretty sure the existence of your sense of humour doesn't need to be "proofed" (ouch, couldn't resist that one) either  Grin
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3755


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2010, 22:29:58 PM »

However, I did not ask anyone here yet to proof my postulate of a creator, merely to indulge in the thought excersise.
Quite so, and I’ve already explained in broad strokes why our ignorance of “cause” and “existence” (and much of the relevant physics) is not sufficient to disqualify the atheist position and force us into agnosticism – see here.  Moreover, you have said that “an UNCAUSED first-cause god would not make sense,” which raises the very pertinent question of why require a god at all then.  Surely, if god is caused, that’s no better than asserting that the Big Bang is caused – actually, the caused-god hypothesis is hugely more complicated because now we have replaced one causal mystery with a far more difficult one.

'Luthon64
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2010, 19:23:31 PM »

Surely, if god is caused, that’s no better than asserting that the Big Bang is caused – actually, the caused-god hypothesis is hugely more complicated because now we have replaced one causal mystery with a far more difficult one.

I think I foresee an infinite regression of Gods stretching off into into some distant dimension and wonder if they might all be a product of supernatural selection descended from even more primitive gods.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.858 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 04, 2019, 17:53:38 PM
Privacy Policy