Atheists - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Jackwc wrote:

A somewhat related point I'd been thinking of this afternoon: if I make the claim that every bit of matter that is not under observation automatically becomes spaghetti most everyone here would deny this claim. Of course, we cannot prove whether or not this is true, as it cannot really be proven or disproven in any way. Does a statement that has no proof to back it up, but also no proof disqualifying it, automatically make it legitimate? Why is there not an equally heated debate about the existence of leprechauns as there is the existence of God, considering we have about the same amount of proof for and against the existence of both? In this sort of scenario, I'd say that it makes most sense to deny the existence of God - despite that God cannot be unproven - simply because to accept God because of his unprovability means that you must accept all unprovable statements.

I think those sorts of claims merit disbelief based on the principle of occam's razor. They're arbitrarily specific, they don't exist to explain anything, and their existence is in need of explanation. The argument you'd use against such claims would an appeal to simplicity.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Just to add; I do think those claims differ significantly from the God hypothesis, which I believe has very wide explanatory power and explanatory scope. And the specificities of the claim are justified by basic intuitions, eg. having a moral nature as an explanation of our intuition of the existence of right and wrong, having the property of volition as an explanation of how a non-temporal/non-physical entity can stand in a causal relation with the universe, etc.

Happymeal

We could all be brains in jars.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Or we could be in the matrix and none of this could be real.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Jackwc wrote:

A somewhat related point I'd been thinking of this afternoon: if I make the claim that every bit of matter that is not under observation automatically becomes spaghetti most everyone here would deny this claim. Of course, we cannot prove whether or not this is true, as it cannot really be proven or disproven in any way. Does a statement that has no proof to back it up, but also no proof disqualifying it, automatically make it legitimate? Why is there not an equally heated debate about the existence of leprechauns as there is the existence of God, considering we have about the same amount of proof for and against the existence of both? In this sort of scenario, I'd say that it makes most sense to deny the existence of God - despite that God cannot be unproven - simply because to accept God because of his unprovability means that you must accept all unprovable statements.

I'm just gonna argue with myself here for a second.

You (I) make a claim that suggests that the God hypothesis is on equal ground with any random unprovable hypothesis - this is a fallacy; the God hypothesis exists as an answer to a question in itself. The "spaghetti example" used above provides no answers to any real posed questions.

If asked "where did this come from?", "it was built" is a perfectly reasonable and logical answer. We have the understanding that things are made. The universe is a "thing". There is a possibility this thing was made.

The God hypothesis is not a "ridiculous" or "random" assertion. There is no thread of logic or reason that could lead one to believe that all matter becomes spaghetti when not observed. There IS a thread of logic or reason that could lead one to conclude that the universe has an architect.

Take THAT, self.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

Last edited by Jackwc on 11/26/2012 20:39; edited 2 times in total

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Jackwc wrote:

I'm just gonna argue with myself here for a second.

You (I) make a claim that suggests that the God hypothesis is on equal ground with any random unprovable hypothesis - this is a fallacy; the God hypothesis exists as an answer to a question in itself. The "spaghetti example" used above provides no answers to any real posed questions.

If asked "where did this come from?", "it was built" is a perfectly reasonable and logical answer. We have the understanding that things are made. The universe is a "thing". There is a possibility this thing was made.

The God hypothesis is not a "ridiculous" or "random" assertion. There is no thread of logic or reason that could lead one to believe that all matter becomes spaghetti when not observed. There IS a thread of logic or reason that could lead one to conclude that the universe has an architect.

Take THAT, self.

Being able to debate with yourself is key to giving yourself credibility. Now you just have to counter the argument that you just presented to yourself.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Jasonconfused wrote:

Being able to debate with yourself is key to giving yourself credibility. Now you just have to counter the argument that you just presented to yourself.

Well, atm, my only counter-argument to myself (and Dave) is the following (it's not fully fleshed out though):

To attribute the qualities of a birdhouse or a workbench to the universe is folly. The sublime is not crafted, but the result of natural laws at work.

Take mountains for example. For centuries, mountains were a mystery. Almost all of the great pagan religions have stories seeking to explain the creation of mountains. We now, however, know that mountains are formed through a natural process as the result of thousands of years of plate tectonics. This is a process that isn't architected - it is the result of basic physical law of convection. Could not the universe's origins too be the result of some great natural process we have yet to come to comprehend?

To Dave specifically (though this may itself goes into an entirely different debate): this is, of course, to assume that there IS in fact a "moral nature" and that morals aren't entirely relative.

(Also we've discussed volition at length, but came to an impass as to whether or not predestination negates true will and choice)
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Jackwc wrote:

Take mountains for example. For centuries, mountains were a mystery. Almost all of the great pagan religions have stories seeking to explain the creation of mountains. We now, however, know that mountains are formed through a natural process as the result of thousands of years of plate tectonics. This is a process that isn't architected - it is the result of basic physical law of convection. Could not the universe's origins too be the result of some great natural process we have yet to come to comprehend?

(Also we've discussed volition at length, but came to an impass as to whether or not predestination negates true will and choice)

This is interesting because I had a discussion with someone about the existence of God in which they said that something had to create the universe and that nothing could come from nothing. I said that those same rules should apply to her supposed god. She argued that to say that, I would have to assume that I understood the supernatural nature of God. My only argument was that that same supernatural nature could be the universe's. I guess in a way I suggested that the universe itself could be god (in a limited sense of what people consider to be God's powers).

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

Jackwc wrote:

I'm just gonna argue with myself here for a second.

You (I) make a claim that suggests that the God hypothesis is on equal ground with any random unprovable hypothesis - this is a fallacy; the God hypothesis exists as an answer to a question in itself. The "spaghetti example" used above provides no answers to any real posed questions.

If asked "where did this come from?", "it was built" is a perfectly reasonable and logical answer. We have the understanding that things are made. The universe is a "thing". There is a possibility this thing was made.

The God hypothesis is not a "ridiculous" or "random" assertion. There is no thread of logic or reason that could lead one to believe that all matter becomes spaghetti when not observed. There IS a thread of logic or reason that could lead one to conclude that the universe has an architect.

Take THAT, self.

While many centuries of polishing, altering, adding and removing may give the appearance of it being more valid than any other random story, on closer scrutiny it is not. The factual content of any religious fairy tales is no higher than that of the spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot.

In detail: "It was built" is no better an answer than "It always was" or "It was conceived by a donkey" unless supporting evidence is provided.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Jackwc wrote:

To Dave specifically (though this may itself goes into an entirely different debate): this is, of course, to assume that there IS in fact a "moral nature" and that morals aren't entirely relative.

Entirely agree.

My claim is simply that we have a moral intuition, and there's no reason to deny such an intuition in lieu of a defeater. Moral realists have compared it to belief in the reality of the external world of physical objects around us. Belief in physical objects is a properly basic belief grounded in our sensory experience. There is no way to get outside our sensory perceptions to test their veridicality. Still, until we are given a defeater for our sensory beliefs, we are rational to hold to them.