0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Logically this must include your definition of god. Does this mean you are basing your seemingly prejudiced opinion on an invalid definition? Would it not be reasonable to expect more of a scientist?
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.
But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/02/2014 23:20:20All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.That's quite an assertion Dr. Calverd.... Can you prove it? If you can't, then it must be a delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/02/2014 23:20:20The evidence suggests that it wasn't.And what evidence is that?
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/02/2014 23:20:20Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.One can't even say that with any certainty. In this case, if there is a creator that we are as yet unable to either define or detect.... How could one presume to know how, whether or to what degree it may or may not be capable of interacting with it's creation? Another delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/02/2014 23:20:20But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality. When it comes to knowing whether or not some kind of God exists, or even defining what that might be.... How do you see focussing on what theists do or don't do as lending any credibility to your determination of fact (e.g. "There is no God.") arrived at without having all the needed data?
I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural.
It all comes down to Occam in the end
His work in this period became the subject of controversy, and Ockham was summoned before the Papal court of Avignon in 1324 under charges of heresy. During the Middle Ages, theologian Peter Lombard's Sentences (1150) had become a standard work of theology, and many ambitious theological scholars wrote commentaries on it. William of Ockham was among these scholarly commentators. However, Ockham's commentary was not well received by his colleagues, or by the Church authorities. In 1324, his commentary was condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops, and he was ordered to Avignon, France, to defend himself before a papal court. For two years, he was confined to a Franciscan house, until he was condemned as a heretic in 1326.
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.Quote from: alancalverdIt's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind focussing on theists, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God." Quote from: alancalverd The evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given. But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, even with all the data, literally knowing every single detail of every single aspect of the entire universe from start to finish.... a definitive answer to the question "Is there a God?" may still elude. What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter! Quote from: alancalverdIt was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation. I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!Quote from: alancalverdIf "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.To hell with Einstein.... If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data to make a conclusive determination of fact. I can only take theists and atheists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't....Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is not real and does not exist.The two positions are both similarly founded on an inherently flawed line of belief based reasoning leading to oppositely extreme equally irrational conlusions, hence they are both by definition self deluded.Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained.... "Your question about God is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no."
It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't.
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.
If "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.Quote from: alancalverdIt's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind focussing on theists, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God." Quote from: alancalverd The evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given. But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, even with all the data, literally knowing every single detail of every single aspect of the entire universe from start to finish.... a definitive answer to the question "Is there a God?" may still elude. What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter! Quote from: alancalverdIt was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation. I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!Quote from: alancalverdIf "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.To hell with Einstein.... If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data to make a conclusive determination of fact. I can only take theists and atheists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't....Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is not real and does not exist.The two positions are both similarly founded on an inherently flawed line of belief based reasoning leading to oppositely extreme equally irrational conlusions, hence they are both by definition delusional.
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.Quote from: alancalverdIt's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God." Quote from: alancalverd The evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given. But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, even with all the data, literally knowing every single detail of every single aspect of the entire universe from start to finish.... a definitive answer to the question "Is there a God?" may still elude. What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter! Quote from: alancalverdIt was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation. I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!Quote from: alancalverdIf "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.To hell with Einstein.... If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data to make a conclusive determination of fact. I can only take theists and atheists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't....Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is not real and does not exist.The two positions are both similarly founded on an inherently flawed line of belief based reasoning leading to oppositely extreme equally irrational conlusions, hence they are both by definition self deluded.
Nice meeting you Bill S, and as always nice talking with you Dr. Calverd.... I look forward to our next collision!
Quote from: alancalvard Quote It all comes down to Occam in the end Is it ironical that it all comes down to William of Ockham who was a Franciscan Friar?
Quote It all comes down to Occam in the end Is it ironical that it all comes down to William of Ockham who was a Franciscan Friar?
His work in this period became the subject of controversy, and Ockham was summoned before the Papal court of Avignon in 1324 under charges of heresy. During the Middle Ages, theologian Peter Lombard's Sentences (1150) had become a standard work of theology, and many ambitious theological scholars wrote commentaries on it.[5] William of Ockham was among these scholarly commentators. However, Ockham's commentary was not well received by his colleagues,[citation needed] or by the Church authorities. In 1324, his commentary was condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops[citation needed], and he was ordered to Avignon, France, to defend himself before a papal court.[5] For two years, he was confined to a Franciscan house,[citation needed] until he was condemned as a heretic in 1326.
Fact is that "the laws" are man-made descriptions of what is, not god-given rules for what must be, so if things don't appear to "obey" them, it's quite possible that our observations or summaries are at fault. IMHO it is atheism or at least rational skepticism that underpins quantum and relativistic physics.
But we have no reason to suppose that the universe is changing, only our understanding of it (i.e. the laws of physics).
.....but is not proven or necessary.