Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: splashscuba on September 11, 2024, 11:24:41 AM
-
This pretty much sums up my world view on Atheism and religions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ)
-
This pretty much sums up my world view on Atheism and religions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ)
What would you say were the top 5 issues Gervais has with "Religions"?
-
What would you say were the top 5 issues Gervais has with "Religions"?
You'd have to ask him
-
You'd have to ask him
He gave an interview to the wall street journal so it's probably clearer there than trying to separate performance from substance on a YouTube video.
Mind you, my interest in pursuing this thread is likely to wear off before I "get on stage" as it were.
-
He gave an interview to the wall street journal so it's probably clearer there than trying to separate performance from substance on a YouTube video.
He always seems pretty consistent to me. Either way, his utterances resonate with me.
Mind you, my interest in pursuing this thread is likely to wear off before I "get on stage" as it were.
OK, bye then.
-
He always seems pretty consistent to me. Either way, his utterances resonate with me.OK, bye then.
Thought you'd already checked out reply#2
-
He always seems pretty consistent to me. Either way, his utterances resonate with me.OK, bye then.
Here he is in the Wall Street journal it’s 14 years ago but if , as you say, he always seems pretty consistent, it should still be representative of the man
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-SEB-56643
-
Gervais from the previous article
People who believe in God don't need proof of his existence, and they certainly don't want evidence to the contrary.
Evidence? What type of evidence is he talking about?
I don't believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence
So then. What is the scientific evidence to the contrary?
-
This pretty much sums up my world view on Atheism and religions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUUpvrP-gzQ)
One or two horses laughs, one or two times I thought “I’ve never come across these people and I doubt you have”.
-
Gervais from the previous article
Evidence? What type of evidence is he talking about?
So then. What is the scientific evidence to the contrary?
If 'God' is an incoherent claim about which nothing meaningful can be said, because there is nothing specific enough in the form of credible evidence to rebut - then there can be no 'contrary evidence' no matter how often you ask for some.
Therefore 'God' is an unfalsifiable and meaningless claim that is easily dismissed as nonsensical.
-
If 'God' is an incoherent claim about which nothing meaningful can be said, because there is nothing specific enough in the form of credible evidence to rebut - then there can be no 'contrary evidence' no matter how often you ask for some.
Therefore 'God' is an unfalsifiable and meaningless claim that is easily dismissed as nonsensical.
Show incoherence.
-
Show incoherence.
Something for which there is no credible evidence and involves claims of supernatural agency/miracles - the burden of proof here is yours.
I have made clear my views in several posts in the Secular Nativity thread yesterday which I don't intend to repeat - plus I have a lot of kid-related stuff to do today.
-
Something for which there is no credible evidence and involves claims of supernatural agency/miracles - the burden of proof here is yours.
I have made clear my views in several posts in the Secular Nativity thread yesterday which I don't intend to repeat - plus I have a lot of kid-related stuff to do today.
The definition of incoherent is something which is illogical, inconsistent and unclear.
Since you are claiming these you have to show what is illogical, what is inconsistent and what is unclear and where the actual fallacy lies.
Where is the credible evidence contrary to God.
-
The definition of incoherent is something which is illogical, inconsistent and unclear.
Since you are claiming these you have to show what is illogical, what is inconsistent and what is unclear and where the actual fallacy lies.
Where is the credible evidence contrary to God.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my many previous posts on this - I have no burden of disproof here: the burden of proof for 'God' is all yours.
Now - if you'll excuse me I have two grandkids to get ready for school and then do the school run.
-
I refer the honourable gentleman to my many previous posts on this - I have no burden of disproof here: the burden of proof for 'God' is all yours.
Now - if you'll excuse me I have two grandkids to get ready for school and then do the school run.
Can you then cite the posts where you demonstrated illogicality, inconsistency and unclarity.
Since arguments over whether that is true are being had elsewhere let us concentrate on Gervais.
He says Theists cannot prove God and don’t want to hear evidence to the contrary.
We know he means scientific evidence so where is his scientific evidence to the contrary.
-
Your previous posts tell us nothing of consequence Gordon.
Since arguments over whether that is true are being had elsewhere let us concentrate on Gervais.
He says Theists cannot prove God and don’t want to hear evidence to the contrary.
We know he means scientific evidence so where is his scientific evidence to the contrary.
Gervais is making a category error. ''God' isn't a naturalistic claim. It's not subject to scientific evidence. It would need a specific definition of evidence for or against which would need a methodology to evaluate the claim. In the absence of such a methodology, which you have been asked for many many times, and failed to provide, thr claim has no logical coherence because it is not subject to evidence.
-
So then. What is the scientific evidence to the contrary?
For all the half-baked pseudo-philosophical guff you spout, you still don't understand the burden of proof principle, do you?
-
Gervais is making a category error. ''God' isn't a naturalistic claim. It's not subject to scientific evidence. It would need a specific definition of evidence for or against which would need a methodology to evaluate the claim. In the absence of such a methodology, which you have been asked for many many times, and failed to provide, thr claim has no logical coherence because it is not subject to evidence.
You are proposing then that logic only operates within naturalism. You would need to make the case for that.
What you are saying is what I think you’ve been alluding to is science is the only methodology possible and so logic does not work without science which doesn’t work without matter/energy.
However, let us take the argument from contingency contingent things depend on something else for there existence. We cannot be left with inexplicable or unreasonable contingency so that gives a space in logic to be filled by a non contingent entity.
There you go then, that looks methodical and logical.
You see Sane, the distinction between the natural and superficial is recent and arbitrary.
Your proposal that God is incoherent and illogical is certainly controversial.
-
You are proposing then that logic only operates within naturalism. You would need to make the case for that.
What you are saying is what I think you’ve been alluding to is science is the only methodology possible and so logic does not work without science which doesn’t work without matter/energy.
However, let us take the argument from contingency contingent things depend on something else for there existence. We cannot be left with inexplicable or unreasonable contingency so that gives a space in logic to be filled by a non contingent entity.
There you go then, that looks methodical and logical.
You see Sane, the distinction between the natural and superficial is recent and arbitrary.
Your proposal that God is incoherent and illogical is certainly controversial.
I didn't say science was the only method possible. That's why I asked you again for a methodology to show evidence for the claim. And you again failed to provide one. Lying about what I said is tedious.
The 'logic' you attempt is merely a set of unevidenced assertions illustrating the logical incoherence of the claim because you can't demonstrate them.
-
I didn't say science was the only method possible. That's why I asked you again for a methodology to show evidence for the claim. And you again failed to provide one. Lying about what I said is tedious.
The 'logic' you attempt is merely a set of unevidenced assertions illustrating the logical incoherence of the claim because you can't demonstrate them.
Sorry I meant supernatural rather than superficial.
-
I didn't say science was the only method possible. That's why I asked you again for a methodology to show evidence for the claim. And you again failed to provide one. Lying about what I said is tedious.
The 'logic' you attempt is merely a set of unevidenced assertions illustrating the logical incoherence of the claim because you can't demonstrate them.
I’m sorry, unevidenced? Contingent things are unevidenced?
-
I’m sorry, unevidenced? Contingent things are unevidenced?
In the approach you are taking yes, . It assumes cause and effect but that's a supposition because things seem to work that way but it's no an absolute as you treat it here. You then assume that there is, and can be such a thing as a a necessary thing based on nothing other than assertion. It's your old habit of begging the question
-
In the approach you are taking yes, . It assumes cause and effect but that's a supposition because things seem to work that way but it's no an absolute as you treat it here. You then assume that there is, and can be such a thing as a a necessary thing based on nothing other than assertion. It's your old habit of begging the question
So science is incoherent then. We can all pack up and go home.
I have shown how a necessary being is arrived at So I have not just said there is a necessary being.
You seem to be ramming Hume down our throats.
-
So science is incoherent then. We can all pack up and go home.
I have shown how a necessary being is arrived at So I have not just said there is a necessary being.
You seem to be ramming Hume down our throats.
No, science is a method when some a methodology based on a set of assumptions. It doesn't say how that is an absolute. You are are time to appear to draw conclusions about absolutes based on on an assumptions.
You haven't demonstrated anything about a necessary being. And just asserting something that you haven't just asserted something is just another assertion.
-
No, science is a method when some a methodology based on a set of assumptions. It doesn't say how that is an absolute. You are are time to appear to draw conclusions about absolutes based on on an assumptions.
You haven't demonstrated anything about a necessary being. And just asserting something that you haven't just asserted something is just another assertion.
Gibberish. Science is based on observation of cause and effect not the intellectual masturbations of some chancer with a funny hat (Hume)
-
Gibberish.
Basic logic does seem to be that for you.
ETA I see you added the following after I replied
Science is based on observation of cause and effect not the intellectual masturbations of some chancer with a funny hat (Hume)
That you don't understand the problem of induction showing an absolute, and dismiss Hume on the basis of his headgear is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of basis logic, and quite funny.
And none of that even starts to address that your idea of a necessary being is simply an assertion.
-
Basic logic does seem to be that for you.
ETA I see you added the following after I replied
That you don't understand the problem of induction showing an absolute, and dismiss Hume on the basis of his headgear is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of basis logic, and quite funny.
And none of that even starts to address that your idea of a necessary being is simply an assertion.
In what way are they an assertion?
-
In what way are they an assertion?
In the way that you've provided no evidence that such a thing is possible other than just assert it.
-
In the way that you've provided no evidence that such a thing is possible other than just assert it.
I see, because I cannot evidence cause and effect. I cannot show a contingent thing.
And yet science which observes cause and effect provides evidence for what exactly?
-
I see, because I cannot evidence cause and effect. I cannot show a contingent thing.
And yet science which observes cause and effect provides evidence for what exactly?
As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works. Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible. And that necessary following from contingent is just an assertion
-
As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works. Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible.
And the remark you replied to was specific about the the idea that was just being asserted was the necessary being. Not sure why you switched it to contingent which has different problems as covered in my post above.
-
As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works. That is neither here nor there.It’s flannel. Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible.
The necessary being is pulled from contingency and contingent things. If contingency is wrong then everything must pop out of nothing.They would exist in their own right independently.
What is the methodology then which explains such entities?
Trying to think of how the problem of induction affects the ultimate entity in Ockham’s razor, and the ultimate entity?
-
The necessary being is pulled from contingency and contingent things. If contingency is wrong then everything must pop out of nothing.They would exist in their own right independently.
What is the methodology then which explains such entities?
So more assertions, and another begging the question by asking explanations for something you haven't shown is possible. And I'm not saying contingency is wrong, just that you haven't demonstrated it as an absolute.
-
So more assertions, and another begging the question by asking explanations for something you haven't shown is possible. And I'm not saying contingency is wrong, just that you haven't demonstrated it as an absolute.
what in your mind haven’t I shown is possible.
-
what in your mind haven’t I shown is possible.
Anything necessary.
-
Anything necessary.
That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.
If these things do not exist then nothing is contingent and everything is non contingent.
Since there is nothing to prevent these things existing.Then they all exist ‘necessarily’ anyway.
-
That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.
If these things do not exist then nothing is contingent and everything is non contingent.
Since there is nothing to prevent these things existing.Then they all exist ‘necessarily’ anyway.
No, all that's just more assertion, and also based on your claim that contingency is an absolute truth that you haven't demonstrated. No evidence, no logic, just assertion.
-
No, all that's just more assertion, and also based on your claim that contingency is an absolute truth that you haven't demonstrated. No evidence, no logic, just assertion.
Could you give me an example of something you don't consider assertion. Assertions aren't based on anything are they and yet you have me basing a claim.
Contingency is possible it seems in your scheme, I wonder why.
As for contingency being an absolute truth what can that be all about?, you are either contingent or you are not.
Your issue seems to be with absolutism.
So nothing can be absolute for you and of course the necessary being represents that.
-
To me non absolutism is akin to infinities.
An absolute unique necessary is impossible because there could be something more absolute, unique and necessary. It doesn't quite stack up
-
To me non absolutism is akin to infinities.
An absolute unique necessary is impossible because there could be something more absolute, unique and necessary. It doesn't quite stack up
I don't care what your unevidenced, illogical feelings are.
I can't parse your second sentence since it seems to contradict your own claims about a necessary being.
Again, you don't define terms, you don't seem to understand terns, you don't appear to use them with any consistency.
-
Could you give me an example of something you don't consider assertion. Assertions aren't based on anything are they and yet you have me basing a claim.
Contingency is possible it seems in your scheme, I wonder why.
As for contingency being an absolute truth what can that be all about?, you are either contingent or you are not.
Your issue seems to be with absolutism.
So nothing can be absolute for you and of course the necessary being represents that.
Something based on evidence with a methodology.
Saying that you haven't demonstrated an absolute claim doesn't say either that it is impossible to do so, or that there is no such thing as an absolute. You have no grasp that the null hypothesis is not a claim to the opposite of any hypothesis, rather it's a position that until that other hypothesis is demonstrated there is no reason to accept.
Which again means your lack of understanding of basic logic means your posts are logically, and often linguistically, incoherent.
-
That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.
The necessary entity could be the universe (or multiverse) as a whole. The fact that everything in the universe is contingent does not prevent that possibility.
-
The necessary entity could be the universe (or multiverse) as a whole. The fact that everything in the universe is contingent does not prevent that possibility.
It's not a fact that everything in the universe is contingent.
-
Something based on evidence with a methodology.
Saying that you haven't demonstrated an absolute claim doesn't say either that it is impossible to do so, or that there is no such thing as an absolute. You have no grasp that the null hypothesis is not a claim to the opposite of any hypothesis, rather it's a position that until that other hypothesis is demonstrated there is no reason to accept.
Which again means your lack of understanding of basic logic means your posts are logically, and often linguistically, incoherent.
Sorry Sane, but I'm at the point where I feel I need a second opinion no disrespect.
-
It's not a fact that everything in the universe is contingent.
So it's possible there could be something that is non contingent then.
-
Sorry Sane, but I'm at the point where I feel I need a second opinion no disrespect.
Whatever makes you happy but given your basic misunderstandings in logic, you don't appear well equipped to select any such thing.
-
So it's possible there could be something that is non contingent then.
It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.
-
It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.
Is it possible that anything is necessary though?
-
Is it possible that anything is necessary though?
Dunno. I can't say that is impossible but don't have enough evidence to say that it is possible.
-
According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.
-
According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.
I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.
What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.
-
According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.
My take is that the science is based around a set of assumptions. Maybe everything at a quantum level does obey cause and effect bit we don't have the tools to establish that. Maybe nothing on a day to day level is based on cause and effect bit we just use assumptions and tools that lead us to think that. Maybe 2 things that look exactly the same, 1 is based on cause and effect, the other isn't.
-
I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.
What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.
If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?
-
If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?
on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.
-
on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.
That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you
-
That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you
Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?
-
That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you
Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing
-
Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?
I would say it's an assumption itself, and not a proven absolute that you can base an argument on.
-
Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing
This reads as a complete non sequitur to my post.
-
It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.
Nothing necessary is a common belief but nothing contingent. That needs some explanation if only on the basis of your burden of proof for the positive statement.
-
Nothing necessary is a common belief but nothing contingent. That needs some explanation if only on the basis of your burden of proof for the positive statement.
It's not my belief, nor was it a positive statement that it's true that nothing is contingent, that's why I phrased it as it being possible. It's just looking at it philosophically. If for example one was a pantheist then everything might be argued to be necessary. A lot of Eastern philosophy in terms of interconnectedness would look on contingency and necessary as a false dichotomy.
And that something is a common belief gives it no extrs validity.
-
It's not my belief, nor was it a positive statement that it's true that nothing is contingent, that's why I phrased it as it being possible. It's just looking at it philosophically. If for example one was a pantheist then everything might be argued to be necessary. A lot of Eastern philosophy in terms of interconnectedness would look on contingency and necessary as a false dichotomy.
And that something is a common belief gives it no extrs validity.
I'm not a big extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence man. But if ever a proposal merited it this is the case. To be told that something we watched and videod being manufactured might not have been certainly invites a request for explanation.
I may be Humedodging but blaming me for not getting him on certain points sounds a bit courtiers reply. Though I'm not big on them either.
Popping out of nowhere. I am a christian so I accommodate creatio ex nihilo. Black swans are fine until the suggestion that there might be black swans that look like grey elephants¹
-
I'm not a big extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence man. But if ever a proposal merited it this is the case. To be told that something we watched and videod being manufactured might not have been certainly invites a request for explanation.
I may be Humedodging but blaming me for not getting him on certain points sounds a bit courtiers reply. Though I'm not big on them either.
Popping out of nowhere. I am a christian so I accommodate creatio ex nihilo. Black swans are fine until the suggestion that there might be black swans that look like grey elephants¹
Pretty much all of this reads as a non sequitur. It also reads like you haven't read my post but are filling in lots of stuff I didn't write. None of the post you are replying to is about Hume which is why I mentioned pantheism, and Eastern philosophy. It's not about things not being made but that everything is a single thing that cannot be any other way.
And again, it's not me making a claim that this is true, or that it's my belief so it would be useful if you didn't repeat that error in the discussion.
I still have no idea what you think creation out of nothing has to do with this.
-
Back to Gervais' "theory of religion".
God and hell are warnings like "beware of the wolf" or "fire".
Hell fire wasn't a feature in early Judaism.
Hell as a consequence doesn't seem like a thing that would capture a young imagination. It might chime in a medieval environment but not in the formative period of any religion I am aware of. A later development which may capture adult minds perhaps.
-
Back to Gervais' "theory of religion".
God and hell are warnings like "beware of the wolf" or "fire".
Hell fire wasn't a feature in early Judaism.
Hell as a consequence doesn't seem like a thing that would capture a young imagination. It might chime in a medieval environment but not in the formative period of any religion I am aware of. A later development which may capture adult minds perhaps.
Monotheism wasn't a feature of early Judaism. Are you suggesting your god was a bit crap at branding to start with, and didn't have the marketing mix quite right?
-
Monotheism wasn't a feature of early Judaism. Are you suggesting your god was a bit crap at branding to start with, and didn't have the marketing mix quite right?
No, I'm suggesting Gervais is a bit crap.
-
No, I'm suggesting Gervais is a bit crap.
Aren't we all?