Why atheism is irritating

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;68854 wrote:

I think you go too far (in an earlier post) to say there are no laws of nature. How can you (or anyone) know that?

If you read my comments again you will see that I was very careful to express that point.

"There's nothing detectable beyond that. Perhaps causes are some kind of thing that forces other things to happen but there is absolutely no evidence for that and it doesn't add any kind of explanatory or predictive power."

I am not claiming to know anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is no evidence for "laws" of that sort. There may be such things as physical "laws" and there may be celestial teapots orbiting us in space. We could at least check for teapots. It's impossible to detect the difference between a cause and a correlation.

@Satan phil,

Satan;68870 wrote:

I am not claiming to know anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is no evidence for "laws" of that sort. There may be such things as physical "laws" and there may be celestial teapots orbiting us in space. We could at least check for teapots. It's impossible to detect the difference between a cause and a correlation.

[SIZE="3"]Yes, I missed your meaning a bit of not being able to tell if a "law" describes a cause or a correlation. You are correct of course. If all you meant to do was dispute Hue-man's assumption that laws are equivalent to "causes," I have nothing to more to say.

On the other hand, you did say, "there are no 'laws' of nature." It may not be what you meant, but standing alone as a statement it is incorrect since it makes no difference whether a law describes a cause or correlation.

We invent terms all the time to describe the way we observe reality behaving. The term "law" means something. As applied to a natural behavior of the universe, it seems to be applied to a history of consistency in behavior. Whatever the reason for that consistency is irrelevant to the use of the term (or its practical value, such as using the history of constancy for predictions made for space flight).[/SIZE]

@hue-man,

hue-man;68837 wrote:

Xris, all of the conditions for life were not in place at the big bang, which is why there were no life forms at the big bang. Seeing purpose and design behind the event because it mind boggles you is your personal, human perspective. Exploring the idea of an engineered universe demands that we find the engineer. This just leads to a dead end, and we might as well accept that.

Hue the point im making is that by the BB life was inevitable,it was written into the consequences of the BB.The formula for life is just like any other formula it does not self generate it is will perform when the circumstances allow it.I say again life was directly caused by the BB,this point that appears from nowhere.I am agnostic, i dont think its possible to know god but its certain there is evidence to be considered.

@xris,

xris;69045 wrote:

Hue the point im making is that by the BB life was inevitable,it was written into the consequences of the BB.The formula for life is just like any other formula it does not self generate it is will perform when the circumstances allow it.I say again life was directly caused by the BB,this point that appears from nowhere.I am agnostic, i dont think its possible to know god but its certain there is evidence to be considered.

Xris, no offense but your logic is very flawed. The big bang is not evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, nor does it imply that the universe is supernatural. The big bang was not the direct cause of the emergence of life on Earth. By that logic I suppose that the big bang was also the direct cause of President Kennedy's assassination. Inevitability is a meaningless concept; nothing is theoretically inevitable.

@hue-man,

hue-man;69112 wrote:

Xris, no offense but your logic is very flawed. The big bang is not evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, nor does it imply that the universe is supernatural. The big bang was not the direct cause of the emergence of life on Earth. By that logic I suppose that the big bang was also the direct cause of President Kennedy's assassination. Inevitability is a meaningless concept; nothing is theoretically inevitable.

When do you think the formula for life became a reality? I told you my opinion on determinism,it did not include the random events that could or did lead to the assination of Kennedy.It does include the determined events that would be directly attributed to the BB.

@xris,

xris;69115 wrote:

When do you think the formula for life became a reality? I told you my opinion on determinism,it did not include the random events that could or did lead to the assination of Kennedy.It does include the determined events that would be directly attributed to the BB.

That's the problem, xris. The formulation of life on Earth cannot be directly attributed to the big bang anymore than the Kennedy assassination can. Fatalism is a meaningless concept of inevitability that has been confused with determinism. The formula for life on Earth became a reality when the first organism formed on Earth.

@hue-man,

hue-man;69122 wrote:

That's the problem, xris. The formulation of life on Earth cannot be directly attributed to the big bang anymore than the Kennedy assassination can. Fatalism is a meaningless concept of inevitability that has been confused with determinism. The formula for life on Earth became a reality when the first organism formed on Earth.

Not the realisation of the formula but the formula itself.In your opinion the formula did not exist before life on earth,now thats fatalism.Life on Earth was not inevitable because of my random law, but if the circumstances for life are appropriate then the formula does the rest.I believe in human fate but we write our own fate by free will.Nature will take a certain course by its own laws, it can not deny the inevitability of circumstance.

@xris,

xris;69134 wrote:

Not the realisation of the formula but the formula itself.In your opinion the formula did not exist before life on earth,now thats fatalism.

How is that fatalism? Describe fatalism? Please explain yourself?

xris;69134 wrote:

Life on Earth was not inevitable because of my random law, but if the circumstances for life are appropriate then the formula does the rest.I believe in human fate but we write our own fate by free will.Nature will take a certain course by its own laws, it can not deny the inevitability of circumstance.

Can you please tell me what you mean by formula?

Human fatalism is incompatible with free will. If human's have a fate, and humans are a part of this deterministic universe, then you believe in ontological fatalism, which is a meaningless concept.

@hue-man,

It seems as though your application of the principal of parsimony leads to unnecessary ontological judgments that are not necessarily true. If it is ontologically possible, then it seems that the only theoretical conclusion is to acknowledge that it is possible, while in practice, simply to point out that it is odd to consider the ramifications of such an entity as it is not verified.

I understand that assuming god to be real and developing a metaphysics surrounding this god is totally absurd in the same sense that conspiracy theories tend to be(in that there are many assumed connections and agents that may or may not exist that may or may not influence things with little evidence presented) so that it is practical to dismiss god in the sense that god is often viewed, but from an ontological point of view, it is more correct to be agnostic.

I am an atheist in practice, but I still cannot say that there are no pink flying unicorns from mars: I can only say that they are very unlikely and that I am not going to entertain the idea.

@hue-man,

hue-man;69150 wrote:

How is that fatalism? Describe fatalism? Please explain yourself?

Can you please tell me what you mean by formula?

Human fatalism is incompatible with free will. If human's have a fate, and humans are a part of this deterministic universe, then you believe in ontological fatalism, which is a meaningless concept.

If you could answer my post first Hue..you appear to try and avoid answering by asking.Please dont do that, compose a proposal as if it proves a point of view.

@xris,

xris;69159 wrote:

If you could answer my post first Hue..you appear to try and avoid answering by asking.Please dont do that, compose a proposal as if it proves a point of view.

You didn't ask me a question in that post, xris. I've been answering your questions during this whole debate. Now can you please answer my questions?

@hue-man,

hue-man;69173 wrote:

You didn't ask me a question in that post, xris. I've been answering your questions during this whole debate. Now can you please answer my questions?

Do you need a question mark to respond to a post?????

@odenskrigare,

No, you need one to imply a question.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;69158 wrote:

It seems as though your application of the principal of parsimony leads to unnecessary ontological judgments that are not necessarily true. If it is ontologically possible, then it seems that the only theoretical conclusion is to acknowledge that it is possible, while in practice, simply to point out that it is odd to consider the ramifications of such an entity as it is not verified.

I understand that assuming god to be real and developing a metaphysics surrounding this god is totally absurd in the same sense that conspiracy theories tend to be(in that there are many assumed connections and agents that may or may not exist that may or may not influence things with little evidence presented) so that it is practical to dismiss god in the sense that god is often viewed, but from an ontological point of view, it is more correct to be agnostic.

I am an atheist in practice, but I still cannot say that there are no pink flying unicorns from mars: I can only say that they are very unlikely and that I am not going to entertain the idea.

I can say that I'm certain as I can be of anything that there are no pink unicorns on mars, not only because of the principle of parsimony, but also because mars can't even support primitive life forms. Also, unicorns, like God, are a construct of the human imagination drawn from actual things, like horses and humans themselves.

Agnostics have a bad epistemology, because they seem to assume that knowledge is an absolute concept. Knowledge faces the justified argument of skepticism, and so we really can't be absolutely certain of anything. Knowledge is a practical concept, so let's be practical. The principle of parsimony is an expression of the practicality of knowledge as a concept. Saying that you can't be certain that there are no pink unicorns on mars is a result of your not recognizing the principle of parsimony.

@hue-man,

hue-man;69150 wrote:

How is that fatalism? Describe fatalism? Please explain yourself?

Can you please tell me what you mean by formula?

Human fatalism is incompatible with free will. If human's have a fate, and humans are a part of this deterministic universe, then you believe in ontological fatalism, which is a meaningless concept.

I will play this silly game of cat and mouse rather than debate, what is obviously not what you intend.Do you honestly not understand what i mean when i say the formula for life? Given certain chemical compounds,unknown,combined with certain circumstances we have the outcome of sustainable life.You can maintain that life in its initial formation was a one off with creation as its cause or it will form on each occasion when the right compounds and circumstances initiate its arrival, you choose.
Ill leave the debate on fate to another occasion as this formula for life appears to be a very difficult subject to comprehend.

@odenskrigare,

I think this formula of life stuff is pretty anthrocentric myself, for the following reasons:

A) The universe could have developed in a variety of different ways due to Chaos theory. Life need not have formed.

B) What life there is undoubtably thinks life is a pretty neat thing, but life in comparison to non-life is quite marginal, insignificant, puny.

C) Life on earth will certainly cease to exist before the universe does. In terms of time life isn't about for very long.

D) What is there to say that the universe has a purpose for life rather than non-life?

@hue-man,

hue-man;69185 wrote:

and so we really can't be absolutely certain of anything. Knowledge is a practical concept, so let's be practical. The principle of parsimony is an expression of the practicality of knowledge as a concept. Saying that you can't be certain that there are no pink unicorns on mars is a result of your not recognizing the principle of parsimony.

So you say that while admitting that I cannot be absolutely certain, due to the fluid nature of knowledge, that I should just be practically certain? It seems that this point of view could be more conducive of dogmatism than mine, but it does seem coherent, at least in the realm of the practical.

Speaking from the ideal of absolute knowledge, no, I cannot say that there are no pink unicorns from(not on, I never said on, so your little talk about the climate of mars was unwarranted) mars, but you suggest I simply eliminate the ideal in line with the principal of parsimony? So that as truth is subjective, so is knowledge?

Absolutes and ideals are all impractical and in contrary to the principal of parsimony though, are they not? They are indeed unwarranted abstractions derived from the more appealing aspects of what actually is.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69193 wrote:

I think this formula of life stuff is pretty anthrocentric myself, for the following reasons:

A) The universe could have developed in a variety of different ways due to Chaos theory. Life need not have formed.

B) What life there is undoubtably thinks life is a pretty neat thing, but life in comparison to non-life is quite marginal, insignificant, puny.

C) Life on earth will certainly cease to exist before the universe does. In terms of time life isn't about for very long.

D) What is there to say that the universe has a purpose for life rather than non-life?

Oh my oh my ,is it that difficult to conceive, to understand? I will try one more time...Imagine life as we know it started in some primeval soup..now how did that life begin?did we have certain compounds and conditions?are you keeping up?Those conditions i presume could be replicated and we would then have life once more...Now those compounds and those conditions describe the formula, in the enormity of the universe could occur again ,agree?

@odenskrigare,

Not at all, for the reasons I stated above.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69204 wrote:

Not at all, for the reasons I stated above.

Then you have failed to answer the question.Was it one off or can it reoccur???dont fudge it this time..

Philosophy Forum

Why atheism is irritating

Quick Links

My Account

able2know