Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[wigginhall]

No I'm perfectly consistent in that alienation is not a concept or experience drawn from nature it is something we are therefore experiencing in the supernatural........just like matter cannot be moral or immoral but humans can be super materially.

This is very close to presuppositionalism, which argues that there can be no distinctions, whether conceptual or moral, without God.   They seem to be less common than they used to be, so maybe you can argue for it.   In fact, I think they argue that there can be no reason without God, this was the line taken by Van Til.  It's really a gigantic tu quoque, I think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is very close to presuppositionalism, which argues that there can be no distinctions, whether conceptual or moral, without God.   They seem to be less common than they used to be, so maybe you can argue for it.   In fact, I think they argue that there can be no reason without God, this was the line taken by Van Til.  It's really a gigantic tu quoque, I think.

I don't believe God is mentioned in your quote of me.
I use the word supernatural partly as an antidote to the sloppy and totalitarian use of the term natural.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

We seem to wandering into issues unrelated to teapots, celestial or otherwise, so I'm going to remove all the posts which revolve around conduct before matters escalate and hope that the thread gets back to something resembling issues rather than people.

Will lock while I do this and unlock afterwards.

Update: done that, so could we move on now please.

[Alan Burns]

..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable

But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?

So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.

[Sebastian Toe]

But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.

Ah the good old NPF rolled out once more for an airing.
Did you know that the NPF is Satan's way of making Christians look stupid?

[torridon]

But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?

So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.

NPF shot all the way through just like a stick of Scarboro rock.

But even if there were some supernatural cause for the above, there would be no way to establish or verify that. Positing supernatural is a waste of time therefore.

[jeremyp]

Define 'being' in this context, then.

"sentient thing" in this context.

Trouble is, we can say nothing about the nature of the being that would lend itself to observation and hence evidence.  We can say nothing about its location, mass, nature, speed, structure, provenance, substance or any of the properties that could be identified to characterise a being's existence.  How can a being be said to exist if it has no measurable existential properties ?

Don't ask me. I don't believe God does exist.

[jeremyp]

sounds a bit like you are describing dark matter

Actually, we can detect dark matter by its effect on the matter we can see.

[Walter]

mmm, that's why I said 'a bit' . I was hoping someone would make that important observation. thanks

[Bubbles]

celestial teapot? 


Another way of coming at it

Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.”

So your beliefs do not define who you are – your actions do, IMO.

So if one person has Jesus, another a celestial teapot, I'm not worried 

It's actions that move the universe, and that's the bit that really matters, IMO.


If people concentrated on their actions more, perhaps the world might be a better place.

It's no good having a celestial teapot, if it don't make a good cuppa!

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

celestial teapot? 


Another way of coming at it

Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.”

So your beliefs do not define who you are – your actions do, IMO.

So if one person has Jesus, another a celestial teapot, I'm not worried 

It's actions that move the universe, and that's the bit that really matters, IMO.


If people concentrated on their actions more, perhaps the world might be a better place.

It's no good having a celestial teapot, if it don't make a good cuppa!

While I agree with the sentiment, you've missed the point of the analogy. It's just a device to illustrate why "you can't disprove it" is not an argument for something (see Alan Burns's latest effort for an extended attempt at it).

Non-falsification is a necessary condition for truth, but not a sufficient one. Some here utterly miss the point too with their "but the celestial teapot idea is ridiculous" response, again failing to grasp that the object of the argument - "God", the teapot, whatever - has no relevance to the argument itself. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Rose,

While I agree with the sentiment, you've missed the point of the analogy. It's just a device to illustrate why "you can't disprove it" is not an argument for something (see Alan Burns's latest effort for an extended attempt at it).

Perhaps the reason why the point keeps on being missed is because the analogy keeps on being misused, hence why you have completely misunderstood Alan Burns' #403 above. Where has he said or even implied that failure to prove one thing means that something else is therefore true? His post again in response to your post:

..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable

But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?

So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.

My understanding of his response to your quote is that what he has stated is not consistent with your claim that

..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable

I would have expected you to present solutions to show how/why the things he mentioned are verifiable. You have failed to do so.

[Gordon]

I would have expected you to present solutions to show how/why the things he mentioned are verifiable. You have failed to do so.

Nope - fallacious arguments can be dismissed on that basis. In addition to the dear old NPF, as was noted earlier, Alan is also indulging in another of his favourite fallacies: the argument from personal incredulity where the post of his you quoted is a splendid example.

Where an argument is so obviously fallacious there is no requirement to go beyond pointing out the fallacy.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But even if there were some supernatural cause for the above, there would be no way to establish or verify that. Positing supernatural is a waste of time therefore.

This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.

Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.

[Walter]

Gordon,

well said . It strikes me SOTS is incapable of understanding or he is a very naughty boy.

[torridon]

This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.

Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.

I don't think so;  it simply follows from the definition of supernatural.  Anything supernatural is not amenable to investigation or analysis; there is no way we could recognise it as such.

[Gordon]

This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.

Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.

As ever you misunderstand the point you are responding to, as your use of terms like 'truth', 'prove' and 'cause' demonstrates.

[Walter]

It puzzles me why people continue to use the same arguments over and over when its been pointed out to them so many times that they are wrong.
as the saying goes; you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

[SusanDoris]

SotS's posts seem to me to lack any modesty, or the remotest acknowledgement that he could, just possibly, you know, like, er, be wrong!

[Alan Burns]

Ah the good old NPF rolled out once more for an airing.
Did you know that the NPF is Satan's way of making Christians look stupid?

If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.

in context both this and your previous post are implying that bluehilsside is a stating a philosophical naturalist position. Since he doesn't why are you lying about his position twice?

[Sebastian Toe]

If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.

....by using the NPF?
I must try that sometime.

[Walter]

I think this thread's got a knot in it now!

[Alan Burns]

in context both this and your previous post are implying that bluehilsside is a stating a philosophical naturalist position. Since he doesn't why are you lying about his position twice?

This is what bluehillside said:
"Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. "

My post simply shows that naturalism does not provide verifiable answers to the points I raised.

[Nearly Sane]

This is what bluehillside said:
"Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. "

My post simply shows that naturalism does not provide verifiable answers to the points I raised.

But those points are implying philosophical naturalism, so why are you arguing he takes a position he does not?