[Log4Girlz]

Why are we comparing ourselves to God? Why does it make no sense? Naturally if God is one thing, then what God creates is another thing, which is defined as much by being 'not God' as anything else.

I don't see why God simply doesn't make more Gods, why make things which cannot create themselves (meaning things which continue to make other things creatively)? If God created us, why not compare ourselves to it? Why create anything to begin with? Why not be content with its own existence?

No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

[Angry Fork]

I don't see why God simply doesn't make more Gods, why make things which cannot create themselves (meaning things which continue to make other things creatively)? If God created us, why not compare ourselves to it? Why create anything to begin with? Why not be content with its own existence? No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

"God is mysterious."

'But make sure you don't eat meat, God thought that was a much more important thing to tell people.'

[OttomanScribe]

No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

Well who said there needs to be a purpose? Though I would argue there is, that being the reflection of the attributes of God. However if we are talking about a simple justification of any theism, then why does there need to be a purpose?

Alright, is that all that you ascribe to the word god? Because most religions tend to go a bit further than that. And if it is, why would you choose a loaded word like "god" in the first place, when the word is used in religious context?

I am also using a religious context... like I said, my idea of God is that of Islamic theology, specifically the Ashari school.

[Log4Girlz]

You're saying that the example is citing the burden of proof argument? No, its really not, at least I don't think so. Dawkins uses the same example and talks about agnostic conciliation.

"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them *Log edit: he is specifically talking about who the burden of proof should fall on, specifically orthodox people[/b]. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. *Log edit: Now he is constructing a thought exercise involving an unreasonable assertion* But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense *Log edit: And what he is saying here that since what he claims cannot be unproven and he said that it was intolerable that someone does not assume what he says is true based on its unprovability, then he be all crazy and such*. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time*Log edit: He then goes on to say if this exact example were taught in like, religious books and indoctrinated into young people's heads at school when they were young, the it would be ridiculous not to believe it"

Yeah, I would say he's talking about burden of proof.

[Haly]

Enough of semantics, let's make this fun with a thought experiment:

A man (or woman) with amnesia is dropped in the middle of the desert. They don't remember their past, although they still retain language, don't ask me how this works, it's a thought experiment!

So as he (or she, and you should assume I'm adding this every time I use a gender pronoun) is walking through the desert, he passes other people now and then. Sometimes he hears mention of trees. Whenever this happens, he takes a looks around and sees nothing but sand.

"I can't see any trees here, so there must be no trees."

And he walks and walks and eventually dies of dehydration.

However, just outside of the desert there is a forest, trees for days. Can't see the trees because the other trees are blocking the way.

The metaphor here should be painfully obvious.

My question to you is if the man was right for thinking that there were no trees around even though trees did exist. As an outside observer, you have knowledge that the man does not. You know for a fact that the trees exist, because I said so, but does this somehow invalidate what he's saying?

I think it can be argued both ways.
1) The man is wrong, because there were trees.
2) The man might've been wrong, but for all practical intents and purposes, there were no trees.

The implication of 2), of course, is that we live our lives according to what we can perceive. Anything outside of it has no practical value, and should be discarded. However, this does not make the man factually correct. Effectively, there are two types of truths, ones that are intrinsic to the universe he exists in, these are objective, and ones that are unique to his worldview, subjective. Which one has more merit I will not comment on :3

[Ashes1396]

"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them *Log edit: he is specifically talking about who the burden of proof should fall on, specifically orthodox people[/b]. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. *Log edit: Now he is constructing a thought exercise involving an unreasonable assertion* But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense *Log edit: And what he is saying here that since what he claims cannot be unproven and he said that it was intolerable that someone does not assume what he says is true based on its unprovability, then he be all crazy and such*. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time*Log edit: He then goes on to say if this exact example were taught in like, religious books and indoctrinated into young people's heads at school when they were young, the it would be ridiculous not to believe it" Yeah, I would say he's talking about burden of proof.

Dawkins reiterates this argument more than once: A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God’s existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about God, he considers God’s existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy’s. . . . Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn’t mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.3 Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can’t prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto.We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn’t.

Two people can play the quoting game. :P

Edit: In fact I'll quote my self:

Is god not an infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created? Perhaps it is. But that doesn't validate your reasoning for holding the two things to be of equal value, equally unlikely, or likely. You can't even equate to hold both things to the ransom of evidence of equal value. I've thought about this teapot argument for years now, and read about it too (it is to be clear, not really a philosophical argument that I am addressing - only a popular example in the atheist vs theist debate). It's stupid (its dull too but that is beside the point]. But in philosophy, you can't just say something is stupid, You have to prove it. The idea that god's existence is held parallel/equal to a teapot in space is... bleh. For one thing, what is the accountability of the evidence of a teapot in space? why would it be there? But still the hypothetical teapot is such strong evidence against the belief in the possibility of a god, that it is nearly always mentioned. Absurd-reductum thrown in there some where as well. I suppose the evidence in question, is empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of a teapot (or god for that matter) out in space. So we cannot prove it exists, but then we cannot prove that it doesn't exist now, can we? And since nobody believes there is a teapot out in space, therefore we do likewise with the God theory. And the problem is evidence, to be clear here we are talking about empirical evidence. Can we not talk about things existing, in the absence of evidence? Say we talk postboxes at the end of your street. You say there is one. I can't check your street, so I won't have evidence for it. Because I can't go look for it. But one day, I actually in person, go to where you live and look down your street. Oh, so there is a postbox. Now, the problem is we can't go looking for a teapot out in space. But can a reasonable person, not assume, that in the absence of evidence, that a thing clearly does not exist? I mean how would it even get there? Its stupid, and dull. The idea of a teapot existing outer space is far-fetched, totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

[Log4Girlz]

Well who said there needs to be a purpose? Though I would argue there is, that being the reflection of the attributes of God. However if we are talking about a simple justification of any theism, then why does there need to be a purpose?

No purpose, no sense. Clouds just float along because of the laws of nature, they just are. I type here with purpose, so one could make the argument I'm not typing random nonsense, because I have a purpose. A god just doing things...just 'cuz, no reason, no purpose, no plan, no design equates it to being random. If things just spring forth just because why not, then its random.

I do not mind if you think god is random and just does things without planning, purpose or need, but to me it defeats the notion or necessity of a god. I may as well just believe in a universe that has existed in one form or another for eternity without purpose, planning, or necessity (which is what I believe).

[The Technomancer]

Haly: Its 2. But you're jumping the gun by moving from "there could be trees even if I don't have evidence of them" to "therefore I will treat the existence of trees as a plausible possibility that I will account for in my life"

Could God or a god exist? Yes. Without evidence though there's no reason to behave as if there could be though, any more then there's reason to behave as if the other millions of supernatural claims "could" be true.

Speculation about intrinsic truth is literally useless. Intrinsic truth can only be approximated through observation and accumulation of evidence.

[Ashes1396]

Haly: Its 2. But you're jumping the gun by moving from "there could be trees even if I don't have evidence of them" to "therefore I will treat the existence of trees as a plausible possibility that I will account for in my life" Could God or a god exist? Yes. Without evidence though there's no reason to behave as if there could be though, any more then there's reason to behave as if the other millions of supernatural claims "could" be true.

But is it the same thing as the teapot out in space?

[Haly]

No, 2) is the Dawkin Atheist's stance, that there is a chance that god exists but it's so slight as to have no practical value. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Although I have to ask, do some of you think that agnostics live their life perpetually questioning whether god exists or not? Because I think it's an unreasonable assumption to turn them into paranoids who constantly flip flop from one stance to the other. My interpretation of agnosticism is a "who cares?" approach, because this debate is, let's be honest, useless, except as a source of entertainment.

Speculation about intrinsic truth is literally useless. Intrinsic truth can only be approximated through observation and accumulation of evidence.

From the man's point of view yes, but not from our point of view (the observers). By saying that the man's conclusion about his surroundings is as valid as our conclusions about his surrounding, you must reject the idea of objective truth.

[Kinitari]

I suppose there is a difference between suspending a judgement on the creator of the universe, and rejecting the tooth fairy. Except, you claim that there isn't. And here we depart. ;)

But why? I've heard this argument before - and it sounds to me that because the idea of a God is so... grandiose, you must give it more consideration. Which is absolutely silly for many reasons.

One, just make any claim you want especially more grandiose if you don't want it dismissed out of hand, which is... exhausting for people listening to these claims. Two, in general we (people) operate in the opposite manner. Bob tells me he saw a skunk yesterday - I don't doubt him, what a benign claim that doesn't really effect anything. Bob tells me he saw a UFO flying through the sun yesterday, I immediately doubt him, and would require a shit load of evidence to believe that.

[OttomanScribe]

No purpose, no sense. Clouds just float along because of the laws of nature, they just are. I type here with purpose, so one could make the argument I'm not typing random nonsense, because I have a purpose. A god just doing things...just 'cuz, no reason, no purpose, no plan, no design equates it to being random. If things just spring forth just because why not, then its random.

If that is the case, that clouds float along because of the laws of nature, then why cannot God create and destroy according to His own nature? Why do you say 'random' when you aren't describing anything random?

[The Technomancer]

No, that's part of 2), although it's my fault if I didn't make it clear. From the man's point of view yes, but not from our point of view (the observers). By saying that the man's conclusion about his surroundings is as valid as our conclusions about his surrounding, you must reject the idea of objective truth.

No, what I'm saying is that the man is doing the best with what he has. He can't know objective truth because of lack of information, and so his observation that there are no trees is the best he can do with the information he has available. It would be illogical on his part to assume that trees exist, weather or not they actually do.

The problem here is that there's a difference between saying "we don't know what the objective truth of reality is" and "but I have a few ideas based on speculation without evidence". Most of the atheists in here acknowledge that we don't understand everything about everything yet. But we don't claim to either.

EDIT: I got you mixed up with V_Arnold for some reason, but I remember your position now.

[Erigu]

Personally, I have been expressing a worldview where I think it is perfectly reasonable and also believable that both the atheists and the religious people are right - to the extent necessary. This belief system includes an ever-changing and reflective personal reality for every single window of consciousness (that can mean a human body, a computer interface, an animal, an expression, almost anything), and there is also current consensus realities that one is aligning himself with based on what he/she currently believes to be true about themselves.

Whenever you post, I can almost smell the smoke...

[Ashes1396]

But why? I've heard this argument before - and it sounds to me that because the idea of a God is so... grandiose, you must give it more consideration. Which is absolutely silly for many reasons. One, just make any claim you want especially more grandiose if you don't want it dismissed out of hand, which is... exhausting for people listening to these claims. Two, in general we (people) operate in the opposite manner. Bob tells me he saw a skunk yesterday - I don't doubt him, what a benign claim that doesn't really effect anything. Bob tells me he saw a UFO flying through the sun yesterday, I immediately doubt him, and would require a shit load of evidence to believe that.

Ahh, that is what Log is talking about. That is pretty much exactly his point. The burden of proof.

[V_Arnold]

Also, needless to say, the concept of Infinity literally blows minds away.
Think about it: even if an Infinite Being is experiencing itself through Creation as Infinite tiny pieces, all the pieces contain Infinity as well. Think about math. Take any subset of R, and you can have infinite numbers in it. Take any two numbers, and you can have infinite numbers between them. Make any small difference between two non-identical numbers, and you can find even smaller differences.

Math is a Godlike concept for me because it contains the rules of existence perfectly and solidly, even when seemingly warped until it almost breaks. But it never does. It is infinite.

[Angry Fork]

Enough of semantics, let's make this fun with a thought experiment: A man (or woman) with amnesia is dropped in the middle of the desert. They don't remember their past, although they still retain language, don't ask me how this works, it's a thought experiment! So as he (or she, and you should assume I'm adding this every time I use a gender pronoun) is walking through the desert, he passes other people now and then. Sometimes he hears mention of trees. Whenever this happens, he takes a looks around and sees nothing but sand. "I can't see any trees here, so there must be no trees." And he walks and walks and eventually dies of dehydration. However, just outside of the desert there is a forest, trees for days. Can't see the trees because the other trees are blocking the way. The metaphor here should be painfully obvious. My question to you is if the man was right for thinking that there were no trees around even though trees did exist. As an outside observer, you have knowledge that the man does not. You know for a fact that the trees exist, because I said so, but does this somehow invalidate what he's saying? I think it can be argued both ways. 1) The man is wrong, because there were trees. 2) The man might've been wrong, but for all practical intents and purposes, there were no trees. The implication of 2), of course, is that we live our lives according to what we can perceive. Anything outside of it has no practical value, and should be discarded. However, this does not make the man factually correct. Effectively, there are two types of truths, ones that are intrinsic to the universe he exists in, these are objective, and ones that are unique to his worldview, subjective. Which one has more merit I will not comment on :3

This entire proposal breaks down the moment you said he had amnesia. He already knew this stuff at one point.

Do you propose God made everyone/everything and then made us forget? And then decided to have some fun by throwing curve balls like evolution and relativity to block us from the 'real' truth?

[soul creator]

I am also using a religious context... like I said, my idea of God is that of Islamic theology, specifically the Ashari school.

this, I assume? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash'ari

Enough of semantics, let's make this fun with a thought experiment: A man (or woman) with amnesia is dropped in the middle of the desert. They don't remember their past, although they still retain language, don't ask me how this works, it's a thought experiment! So as he (or she, and you should assume I'm adding this every time I use a gender pronoun) is walking through the desert, he passes other people now and then. Sometimes he hears mention of trees. Whenever this happens, he takes a looks around and sees nothing but sand. "I can't see any trees here, so there must be no trees." And he walks and walks and eventually dies of dehydration. However, just outside of the desert there is a forest, trees for days. Can't see the trees because the other trees are blocking the way. The metaphor here should be painfully obvious. My question to you is if the man was right for thinking that there were no trees around even though trees did exist. As an outside observer, you have knowledge that the man does not. You know for a fact that the trees exist, because I said so, but does this somehow invalidate what he's saying? I think it can be argued both ways. 1) The man is wrong, because there were trees. 2) The man might've been wrong, but for all practical intents and purposes, there were no trees. The implication of 2), of course, is that we live our lives according to what we can perceive. Anything outside of it has no practical value, and should be discarded. However, this does not make the man factually correct. Effectively, there are two types of truths, ones that are intrinsic to the universe he exists in, these are objective, and ones that are unique to his worldview, subjective. Which one has more merit I will not comment on :3

Why didn't he just go ask those people to provide evidence of these trees they keep talking about? That would probably be the more accurate thought experiment :P

I'm not sure why this man and the observers apparently have to live in completely separate worlds. Is it meant to imply that theists have special god goggles that allows them to see things atheists can't? lol

But yeah, as Technomancer said, I don't blame the guy for working with the knowledge he has. That's all anyone can do.

[V_Arnold]

"See? There's a difference. Of course, I look down on them all the same."

Sorry, what part did you not get about everyone being absolutely "right" in everything until one realizes that he does not believe that anymore, and acts accordingly? I do not look down on anyone, as all is One. If you look down on anyone, you are looking down on yourself.

Edit: Of course, there is a progression to this. I am sure you can find billions of examples of me (past me) looking down on others. Or arguing. It is alright to embrace that as that is me as well. It is just good to aim for being more peaceful and making sure one is headed that way instead of aiming to create more and more conflicts.

Whenever you post, I can almost smell the smoke...

Hehe. Some spiritual people say that I could do a lot of good things with weed - but I do not do anything like that. My only toxic that I embrace is alcohol, but only in slight moderation. The heavy drinker years are over, but those were drinking years only, never drugs.

[Log4Girlz]

Two people can play the quoting game. :P Edit: In fact I'll quote my self:

Russell's Teapot is a thought experiment to illustrate who the burden of proof falls on. The more exceptional a claim, the more evidence must be provided.

A tea pot in space involves a real object which can realistically placed in orbit.

Say we talk postboxes at the end of your street. You say there is one. I can't check your street, so I won't have evidence for it. Because I can't go look for it. But one day, I actually in person, go to where you live and look down your street. Oh, so there is a postbox. Now, the problem is we can't go looking for a teapot out in space. But can a reasonable person, not assume, that in the absence of evidence, that a thing clearly does not exist? I mean how would it even get there? Its stupid, and dull. The idea of a teapot existing outer space is far-fetched, totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

The example of post boxes are real objects, on a real street.

Let us say I make the claim there is a blue whale at the end of the street. Can you reasonably assume there isn't one? What chances would you tell me that there is a blue whale at the end of the street? Would you begrudge me if I demanded you acknowledge there may very well be a whale without providing any evidence?


Blue Whales exist, and one may very well have slipped off a truck bed on its way to be studied at a lab. I should not judge you for not taking me on my word. It is a highly unusual and unlikely occurrence even if theoretically possible. If I do not provide evidence, then I should not expect you to believe I saw a blue whale at the end of your street.

If anyone wants me to believe in a god, I'm gonna need some proof, I will not take anyone's word, or the word of ancient texts that have not provided any information which indicates they are anymore divine in nature than any other text book.

[Haly]

This entire proposal breaks down the moment you said he had amnesia. He already knew this stuff at one point. Do you propose God made everyone/everything and then made us forget? And then decided to have some fun by throwing curve balls like evolution and relativity to block us from the 'real' truth?

Your tag should also include "metaphor is hard".

I guess you subject all thought experiments to rigorous analysis.

Or perhaps not, because if you did you'll find that the "answer" to it is actually in the atheist's favor. But hey, keep living up to your username.

Most of the atheists in here acknowledge that we don't understand everything about everything yet. But we don't claim to either.

Most, but not all. And sometimes I get the feeling that some of you (not you specifically of course) only admit to "doubt" in order to stave off the inevitable counterargument, instead of really entertaining some measurable amount of doubt. And if we're talking about possibilities that are so small as to be practically nonexistent, I could be
a dick and say your doubt is so small as to be nonexistent.

:D

[Log4Girlz]

If that is the case, that clouds float along because of the laws of nature, then why cannot God create and destroy according to His own nature? Why do you say 'random' when you aren't describing anything random?

Because it does not explain why that would be in his nature. Why destroy anything? Seems random to me. Who created "nature" meaning, tendencies? Did the existence of tendencies precede god?

[Erigu]

Sorry, what part did you not get about everyone being absolutely "right" in everything until one realizes that he does not believe that anymore, and acts accordingly?

My mistake: I hadn't read your post properly.

[The Technomancer]

Most, but not all. And sometimes I get the feeling that some of you (not you specifically of course) only admit to "doubt" in order to stave off the inevitable counterargument, instead of really entertaining some measurable amount of doubt. Hell, I think I'm giving some people too much credit by thinking they put any thought into this at all.

It depends on how you define a measurable amount of doubt. I have about the same amount of doubt in the non-existence of God as I do that the laws of physics will arbitrarily change one day. That is to say its a non-zero possibility but its so small that in my day to day life I don't have to acknowledge it, it falls underneath my mental resolution of "things that need to be worried about"

(and of course that doubt will shift if and when evidence ever arises, in proportion to how good the evidence is)

[Log4Girlz]

It depends on how you define a measurable amount of doubt. I have about the same amount of doubt in the non-existence of God as I do that the laws of physics will arbitrarily change one day. That is to say its a non-zero possibility but its so small that in my day to day life I don't have to acknowledge it, it falls underneath my mental resolution of "things that need to be worried about"

If I were to construct an argument from ignorance I could say we have no knowledge about how long the laws of physics have remained steady and it is entirely feasible that they may change at a moment's notice. Now, if I insist they will, now that's a problem.

[Haly]

Why didn't he just go ask those people to provide evidence of these trees they keep talking about? That would probably be the more accurate thought experiment :P

Oh he did, and they couldn't come up with anything. Some said trees were 30 feet tall, some said trees grew needles, some said trees were long sticks (they are wrong, bamboo are a type of grass), but none of them could show him a tree because they're obviously too heavy to carry around in the desert.

I'm not sure why this man and the observers apparently have to live in completely separate worlds. Is it meant to imply that theists have special god goggles that allows them to see things atheists can't? lol

The observers could be the aliens that kidnapped him somewhere in backwater U.S., did their probing business, then dumped him in the Sahara in order to find the solution this problem!

(To make things clear, the theists are the people claiming the existence of trees. The man is the atheist. If the observers had any direct analogue, they would be a higher power who can observe what happens in the man's world at will. Aliens, or gods. Or humans doing a simulation on a computer who are themselves a simulation ad infinitum. Oh and, the people claiming the existence of tress haven't seen any, it's a very big desert and people die before getting out. It's DEEP)

But yeah, as Technomancer said, I don't blame the guy for working with the knowledge he has. That's all anyone can do.

I was hoping you'd say that, and I had a long response ready, but I'm tired and lazy.

[CornBurrito]

Hehe. Some spiritual people say that I could do a lot of good things with weed - but I do not do anything like that. My only toxic that I embrace is alcohol, but only in slight moderation. The heavy drinker years are over, but those were drinking years only, never drugs.

Alcohol is a drug, despite being legal. Unless you are using some odd definition of drug.

[V_Arnold]

Alcohol is a drug, despite being legal. Unless you are using some odd definition of drug.

I know that, my bad. "Drog" in hungary literally means "non-alcoholic drugs" in common usage - of course, when one considers even caffeine a drug as well, the picture changes drastically :D

[Angry Fork]

Your tag should also include "metaphor is hard". I guess you subject all thought experiments to rigorous analysis. Or perhaps not, because if you did you'll find that the "answer" to it is actually in the atheist's favor. But hey, keep living up to your username.

You can't use hypothetical situations that don't make sense. If the people said there were trees and the guy asked for proof, they could just go chop one down and show him evidence of trees.

Oh he did, and they couldn't come up with anything. Some said trees were 30 feet tall, some said trees grew needles, some said trees were long sticks (they are wrong, bamboo are a type of grass), but none of them could show him a tree because it's obviously too heavy to carry around in the desert.

This is bullshit, now you're making things up after the fact as you go along in order to support a specific viewpoint. So now the guy can't get evidence. Well no shit he's not going to believe in trees if nobody can provide evidence for it.

Unless you think there are an army of aliens watching us from the outside on our desert experiment then it doesn't match anywhere near real life.

[Aeris130]

I am also using a religious context... like I said, my idea of God is that of Islamic theology, specifically the Ashari school.

Does the Ashari school make any claims about the source, other than its existance?

[OttomanScribe]

Because it does not explain why that would be in his nature. Why destroy anything? Seems random to me. Who created "nature" meaning, tendencies? Did the existence of tendencies precede god?

We know that such attributes exists because reality exists in the form that it does. Not only does it exist at all, but it exists in a specific form, at least as far as we are aware. His attributes are therefore assumed to be inherent within His existence.

[Log4Girlz]

Yes, in the shadow cast by our ignorance strange and wonderful things may lurk. In the countless expanse of space there are countless stars and planets, a myriad of potential civilizations. How odd our own may seem at times, one can only imagine how unique, interesting and special other races may be.

Though we may have much to learn, only so much can linger in those shadows. I do not believe an infinitely complex being can exist. The possibility is so remote it is not worth discussing. Such an extraordinary claim must be backed by extraordinary evidence. I am open for such evidence, but until then, I will happily dismiss the concept.

We know that such attributes exists because reality exists in the form that it does. Not only does it exist at all, but it exists in a specific form, at least as far as we are aware. His attributes are therefore assumed to be inherent within His existence.

And how do we know that god exists, has these attributes and exists in this specific form? Where was the knowledge gleaned from?

[Angry Fork]

'If something good happens, that's God's will. If something bad happens, that's just the laws of physics/reality'

And under divine command theory raping a 4 year old girl is a good thing as long as god allows it.

lol

[Ashes1396]

Russell's Teapot is a thought experiment to illustrate who the burden of proof falls on. The more exceptional a claim, the more evidence must be provided. A tea pot in space involves a real object which can realistically placed in orbit. The example of post boxes are real objects, on a real street. Let us say I make the claim there is a blue whale at the end of the street. Can you reasonably assume there isn't one? What chances would you tell me that there is a blue whale at the end of the street? Would you begrudge me if I demanded you acknowledge there may very well be a whale without providing any evidence? Blue Whales exist, and one may very well have slipped off a truck bed on its way to be studied at a lab. I should not judge you for not taking me on my word. It is a highly unusual and unlikely occurrence even if theoretically possible. If I do not provide evidence, then I should not expect you to believe I saw a blue whale at the end of your street. If anyone wants me to believe in a god, I'm gonna need some proof, I will not take anyone's word, or the word of ancient texts that have not provided any information which indicates they are anymore divine in nature than any other text book.

So many words, I feel lost. Simply put, so others can follow, Russel's point is perhaps that one shouldn't believe in things, just because it cannot be dis-proven.

I think, a lot of times, things can be dismissed, rejected, in the absense of evidence. Just like I dismissed, (not off hand without explanation, where you just have to accept it, like he did), his teapot. The teapot is stupid.

It's a poor example of burden of proof; with no real epistimoligical link.

[Erigu]

Oh he did, and they couldn't come up with anything. Some said trees were 30 feet tall, some said trees grew needles, some said trees were long sticks (they are wrong, bamboo are a type of grass), but none of them could show him a tree because they're obviously too heavy to carry around in the desert.

Did they also claim that the trees they saw told them "We are the only true trees. You may hear about other types of trees, but those aren't really trees"? The same claim, from those who described them as being 30 feet tall, those who described them with needles, etc?

[Log4Girlz]

So many words, I feel lost. Simply put, so others can follow, Russel's point is perhaps that one shouldn't believe in things, just because it cannot be dis-proven. I think, a lot of times, things can be dismissed, rejected, in the absense of evidence. Just like I dismissed, (not off hand without explanation, where you just have to accept it, like he did), his teapot. The teapot is stupid. It's a poor example of burden of proof; with no real epistimoligical link.

I would disagree with you, the teapot is a real object that can occupy real space in orbit around the sun. All perfectly reasonable concepts. If you dismiss his claim, because he cannot provide evidence, then reasonably you should dismiss other exceptional claims if they do not provide exceptional evidence.

[Ashes1396]

I would disagree with you, the teapot is a real object that can occupy real space in orbit around the sun. All perfectly reasonable concepts. If you dismiss his claim, because he cannot provide evidence, then reasonably you should dismiss other exceptional claims if they do not provide exceptional evidence.

Isn't that just intellectually dishonest? The point is far-fetchedness I presume. And empirical evidence is the name of the game.

[OttomanScribe]

Does the Ashari school make any claims about the source, other than its existance?

It describes the attributes and other such things, in relation to the absolute dissimilitude of God. It also discusses other things once one has accepted the basic assumption of the existence of that source, which is, as already elaborated, a logical choice between two options.

And how do we know that god exists, has these attributes and exists in this specific form? Where was the knowledge gleaned from?

I believe I have already elaborated upon that point. It is a logical choice between the two points I described, and the attributes merely flow on from that.

[Log4Girlz]

Isn't that just intellectually dishonest? The point is far-fetchedness I presume. And empirical evidence is the name of the game.

He is constructing a far fetched example to compare to the far fetched claims of the orthodox and who the burden of proof lies on. If you make a claim you must provide evidence if you want someone to believe it, the more far fetched, the greater the evidence.

We have the technology to make russell's teapot a reality today. But If I tell you Ashes, look I put a teapot into space Ashes, tell me how cool I am, and you ask for evidence...I'm gonna have to pony up some evidence.

Religious claims are the most extraordinary of them all.

[Haly]

Did they also claim that the trees they saw told them "We are the only true trees. You may hear about other types of trees, but those aren't really trees"? The same claim, from those who described them as being 30 feet tall, those who described them with needles, etc?

Of course.

Some of them had pamphlets.

Not made from real trees, but from the desecrated corpses of the heathens' fake trees.

[Pollux]

This entire proposal breaks down the moment you said he had amnesia. He already knew this stuff at one point. Do you propose God made everyone/everything and then made us forget? And then decided to have some fun by throwing curve balls like evolution and relativity to block us from the 'real' truth?

How is evolution a curveball? Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution. Hell the Church is behind most science these days.

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

[Patapwn]

We know that such attributes exists because reality exists in the form that it does. Not only does it exist at all, but it exists in a specific form, at least as far as we are aware. His attributes are therefore assumed to be inherent within His existence.

Along with what the other guy said, this idea of attributes seems to be very convoluted. You named "destruction" as an attribute and said that this is why some people are "destroyers". One could easily claim that the concept of destruction (in the way you used it) is a mental construction to describe subjective occurrences such as the murder of a loved one or the razing of a village.

Making it into some objective attribute seems to rely on too many assumptions to say the least

[Erigu]

Of course. Some of them had pamphlets.

Leaflets.

Wouldn't Desert Guy be a bit annoyed by those contradictory claims? No evidence and it sounds like wishful thinking (invariably "our trees are the true trees, those other guys don't know what they're talking about")?
Wouldn't he be justified in going "look, I'm not saying there isn't more to the world than this desert, but you're not helping!"

[Haly]

Har.

Everyone is looking for the respite and shade of some towering tree. We all strive for the trees, even if we don't think they're there.

But the only tree that we can be sure that exists is the one in your heart, for we are all the trees.

[OttomanScribe]

Along with what the other guy said, this idea of attributes seems to be very convoluted. You named "destruction" as an attribute and said that this is why some people are "destroyers". One could easily claim that the concept of destruction (in the way you used it) is a mental construction to describe subjective occurrences such as the murder of a loved one or the razing of a village. Making it into some objective attribute seems to rely on too many assumptions to say the least

I didn't say that some people are destroyers. I said that some things are destroyed.

The universe moves both towards chaos and towards order, cycles of entropy and its opposite. As humans we are a part of the universe that somehow, through entropy, became self aware, more complex. Destruction and creation in this sense are two sides of the same coin. The universe has, at least from what we understand of reality, gone from a very singular state, to a very complex state, through cycles of chaos and order.

[Log4Girlz]

Har. Everyone is looking for the respite and shade of some towering tree. We all strive for the trees, even if we don't think they're there. But the only tree that we can be sure that exists is the one in your heart, for we are all the trees.

I was a tree once.

[frankthurk]

It describes the attributes and other such things, in relation to the absolute dissimilitude of God. It also discusses other things once one has accepted the basic assumption of the existence of that source, which is, as already elaborated, a logical choice between two options. I believe I have already elaborated upon that point. It is a logical choice between the two points I described, and the attributes merely flow on from that.

So to sum up the basic premise,

What is, is:
Therefore God.

I'm fine with the first part but don't see the need for the second. Infinities don't necessarily need a start or a creator. They may just be.

[Kinitari]

Har. Everyone is looking for the respite and shade of some towering tree. We all strive for the trees, even if we don't think they're there. But the only tree that we can be sure that exists is the one in your heart, for we are all the trees.

That's presumptuous :p. My life is baller, no trees in sight.

[Haly]

I was a tree once.

Some percentage of your bodily makeup must've been part of a tree, and at some point will return to the trees.

(Do atheists have a problem with reincarnation?)

[Kinitari]

Some percentage of your bodily makeup must've been part of a tree, and at some point will return to the trees. (Do atheists have a problem with reincarnation?)

Atheists can believe in any crazy shit they want, ghosts - goblins - demons. Just not God(s). All an atheist is, is someone who doesn't believe in God. As you cannot 'half' believe something, I'd say that's what agnostics are too :p.

Anyway, I know atheists who believe in wiccan new-agey magic and homepathy and ish.