Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out, and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.

Not sure how you got to there from Jeremy’s “Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural” but doubtless he’s better positioned than I am to tell us what he meant by it. 

[Stranger]

If it has no reasoning why do you say it's possible?

Because there's nothing that falsifies it. Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time.

We know from the argument from contingency that the necessary may not be observable.

Still waiting for this argument...

The absence of chaos or the presence of order.

You still haven't made the case that no creator would mean disorder and we observe that conscious beings need order, not the other way around.

Cosmic Fine tuning.

Been dealt with multiple times - and again, it's not something a creator explains. A creator would be extremely "fine tuned".

I could say I discount philosophical naturalism as unreasonable because science cannot establish it.

That would be a non-sequitur and nobody is claiming philosophical naturalism anyway.

But I don't... I just think God free isn't the case.

But can't provide any reason to think that there is actually a god.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not sure how you got to there from Jeremy’s “Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural” but doubtless he’s better positioned than I am to tell us what he meant by it.

I got there mainly from his reply no 486 where he states that it 'rubbish' that science is based on an assumption of naturalism.

[ProfessorDavey]

His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.

We await your evidence for your assertion.

Interesting that you feel something that exists independent of time space and matter and energy is gendered. Somehow suggests you are still unable to see anything beyond your anthropomorphising and human-centric blinkers.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you.

No. I think you need to refute it before you have the arrogance to declare it bad.

That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?

Just think about it for a minute. How do you know that something is natural? You investigate it with science.

[jeremyp]

No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out,

By definition. The supernatural/natural dichotomy isn't really coherent. If we investigate some supernatural phenomenon and discover it to be real, it automatically becomes natural.

and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.

People like applying long words to things but often they just obfuscate the point.

[jeremyp]

I got there mainly from his reply no 486 where he states that it 'rubbish' that science is based on an assumption of naturalism.

Except I didn't say that. I was calling your claim that "science is based on the assumption that all causes are natural" rubbish.

You do this a lot: read your own incorrect meaning into other people's words. I suggest you take more time to understand what people are saying. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because there's nothing that falsifies it. Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time.

You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science. Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy

Been dealt with multiple times - and again, it's not something a creator explains.

of course a creator with volition could explain this...……... as far as being dealt with. It hasn't.

That would be a non-sequitur and nobody is claiming philosophical naturalism anyway.

it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism


[/quote]

[Stranger]

You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science.

Science doesn't come into it. If I have no way at all of testing a proposition, then it's possible that it's true (because I can't prove it false), but, conversely, I have no reason to think it is true.

Whether the test is evidential (science) or through reasoning (logic) or some other way, doesn't matter.

Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable...

Not if they're outside of space-time and pulling at it.

...so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy

You really do need to learn what a category error means and the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a horse laugh fallacy.

of course a creator with volition could explain this...

Only in a pointless just-so story sort of way. All it does is move the problem from the universe to the creator. A creator who creates what you regard as a "fine tuned" universe would have to be even more "fine tuned".

Postulating a creator does nothing to address any real problems, it just moves them from the universe (that we know exists) to the supposed creator (which is just a blind guess).

it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism

Drivel.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science. Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy

Your usual concoction of mistakes here I see. First, he was using an analogy to make a point. Analogies necessarily involve different objects – when someone says “finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack” for example the fact that “a good man” and “needle” are different objects doesn’t invalidate the analogy.

Second, whether you define your pixies as invisible or just assert that no-one’s managed to glimpse one yet there’s nor category error here because the “categories” aren’t god vs pixies; the single category is the group of supposed objects that haven’t been observed. It’s the same category whether it contains your god, any other god or pixies - or all of them.

Third, it’s not the “horse laugh fallacy” at all for reasons that have been explained to you many times – it’s actually the reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device.     

…of course a creator with volition could explain this...……... as far as being dealt with. It hasn't.

It has, and “a creator with volition” explains nothing at all because it’s prone to exactly the same questions about origin etc as the naturalistic universe, only it require more assumptions. Just calling the answer "miraculous" doesn't mean that invoking magic gets you off that hook.
 

it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism

If you want to use that term to mean the position that all there is is necessarily, absolutely naturalistic no-one I know of claims that. Even your unrequited bromance object Richard Dawkins says he’s a “6.9 atheist” when a 7 would be “there categorically are no gods” because that statement is untestable. He’s a “6.9” atheist for the same reason that you, presumably, are a “6.9 a-leprechaunist” – at least unless you’ve found some way categorically to disprove my assertion “leprechauns?   

Just out of interest, what do you get out of making exactly the same mistakes, having them corrected and then repeating them over and over again?     

[Outrider]

Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.

And yet science does reality... interesting?

Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.

Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism?  Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.

Scientists, on the other hand, posit provisional explanations for phenomena (such as the universe) which may or may not be experimentally validated or refuted at some point when we have sufficient technology.  As for whether 'antitheists' would normally dismiss the eternality of the universe - I'm an atheist, I'm a scientist, I can accept that an eternal reality is possible explanation... I'm just not sure with the way your use of terminology wanders through the conversations whether that's 'the universe' to you, or whether I qualify as an 'anti-theist' this week?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism?  Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.

The irony here is that, having just misidentified a category error (ie, gods and pixies) Vlad has committed an actual category error of his own. Atheists are the category of people who find the arguments for gods to be wrong, regardless of whether they think the belief does more good than harm; antitheists on the other hand are the category of people who think believing in gods does more harm than good, regardless of whether they think the arguments attempted for them are sound.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet science does reality... interesting?

Science does physicality whether that is the extent of reality science cannot answer.

Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism?  Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.

Antitheism put simply is opposition to theism.

  As for whether 'antitheists' would normally dismiss the eternality of the universe - I'm an atheist, I'm a scientist, I can accept that an eternal reality is possible explanation... I'm just not sure ……………. whether I qualify as an 'anti-theist' this week?

If you have opposed theism this week I would say so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outy,

The irony here is that, having just misidentified a category error (ie, gods and pixies)

Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings

Vlad has committed an actual category error of his own. Atheists are the category of people who find the arguments for gods to be wrong, regardless of whether they think the belief does more good than harm; antitheists on the other hand are the category of people who think believing in gods does more harm than good, regardless of whether they think the arguments attempted for them are sound.

Antitheism is merely opposition to theism. I know your Lord and Master Christopher Hitchens made it sound more sexy than it basically is but that's just posterboy-ism on your part.

In any case I thought atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods and here's you doing a Hitchens and trying to big up atheism.

[Outrider]

Science does physicality whether that is the extent of reality science cannot answer.

Science does reality - if it can be shown to have an effect, science has a remit.  If it can't be shown to have an effect... is it real?

Antitheism put simply is opposition to theism.

Philosophically, politically?  Those are very different things.

If you have opposed theism this week I would say so.

What if I'm ideologically neutral, politically inactive on the issue, but I have opinions about particularly harmful aspects of some interpretations of some religious tenets?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Philosophically, politically?  Those are very different things.

What if I'm ideologically neutral, politically inactive on the issue, but I have opinions about particularly harmful aspects of some interpretations of some religious tenets?

O.

I think that is right - while I don't believe in god or gods I don't oppose the belief in the existence of god in any kind of political sense. Why, because the belief, of its self, doesn't impact on my life. It is the manifestation of that belief in the form of religion that impacts on lives. And I completely support the freedom of individuals to practice their religion I do oppose anything which creates an uneven playing field, by providing religions and religious people with special privileges not available to non religious people. That is discrimination against non religious people if you turn it on its head. But that isn't antitheism, it is secularism.

[Stranger]

Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings

You still haven't looked up category error, have you? It depends entirely on the context and the exact claims being made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still haven't looked up category error, have you? It depends entirely on the context and the exact claims being made.

I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings

Wrong again. You accused Stranger of a category error (“Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error”) in the context of his comment that “…Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time”.

Both “god” and pixies are in the same category of unfalsifiable claims. Thus Stranger was right and your accusation of a category error was wrong. Again.

Antitheism is merely opposition to theism. I know your Lord and Master Christopher Hitchens made it sound more sexy than it basically is but that's just posterboy-ism on your part.

What a bizarre misrepresentation. Are you feeling unwell or something?

In any case I thought atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods and here's you doing a Hitchens and trying to big up atheism.

I didn’t “big up” anything – I just corrected you on your sly attempt to elide atheism into anti-theism, which is the actual category error on display here.

[Stranger]

I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.

I do. You seem to be very confused about it. If the context is falsifiability, then gods and higher-dimensional gravity pixies can indeed be placed in the same category, namely, those claims that cannot be falsified.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.

Not you apparently. An undetectable god and undetectable pixies are in the same category of claims with undetectable (and therefore unfalsifiable) objects.

Atheism and antitheism on the other hand (that you attempted to elide) are in different categories because one concerns the truth or otherwise of the claim, and the other its desirability whether or not it's true. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not you apparently. An undetectable god and undetectable pixies are in the same category of claims with undetectable (and therefore unfalsifiable) objects.

Atheism and antitheism on the other hand (that you attempted to elide) are in different categories because one concerns the truth or otherwise of the claim, and the other its desirability whether or not it's true.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods......Antitheism is opposition to theism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods......Antitheism is opposition to theism.

Yes I know – that’s what I’ve been explaining to you. Why then did you get that wrong when you said: “Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.”?

Some antitheists may happen to do that, and so might some Zoroastrians or some postmen. Antitheism itself though doesn’t entail that at all, as you now seem to have grasped.

[ProfessorDavey]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods

Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ... well nearly - shame you capitalised God - but nearly there.

[jeremyp]

Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ... well nearly - shame you capitalised God - but nearly there.

Capitalising "God" was correct in the context. It's effectively the name of the Christian god. Capitalising "gods" was wrong.