Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully, these wide-ranging discussions will educate the lurkers about the specifics of various sciences by highlighting the wrong ideas about them as well as the correct ones. But at base, it is the emotional import of the untested assumptions at the core of science (euphemistically called the God of the Gaps) that actually separate the theistic from the atheistic sides. Theists refuse to accept the ignorance as evidence of an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality.
Atheists prefer the unanswered ignorance in the expectation that the ignorance will be eliminated in some future time. They are encouraged by the demonstrated advances in explanations of HOW things work. They ignore WHY they work as ineffable. This "fundamental" difference in willingness to abide in an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality is at the core of what separates the sides, NOT any actual "facts" or lack thereof. The facts about how things work are moot and do not affect the attitudes toward the "fundamental" unanswered issue.
Atheists prefer the unanswered ignorance in the expectation that the ignorance will be eliminated in some future time. They are encouraged by the demonstrated advances in explanations of HOW things work. They ignore WHY they work as ineffable. This "fundamental" difference in willingness to abide in an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality is at the core of what separates the sides, NOT any actual "facts" or lack thereof. The facts about how things work are moot and do not affect the attitudes toward the "fundamental" unanswered issue.
Well, I think the modern use of why and how are conflated in linguistics quite a bit. But that aside....the question of "why" is a bit presumptive, don't you think?
To ask "why" is there a universe instead of not a universe, is presuming there is agency behind the universe. Asking "how" is there a universe instead of not a universe first, will give you better information to determine whether a "why" question is even sensible.
A bit like finding a crime scene with a dead person on the floor....and asking "why" was this person killed. We ought to first ask...."how " did this person die before asking "why", so as to deduce to murder.
Hopefully, these wide-ranging discussions will educate the lurkers about the specifics of various sciences by highlighting the wrong ideas about them as well as the correct ones. But at base, it is the emotional import of the untested assumptions at the core of science (euphemistically called the God of the Gaps) that actually separate the theistic from the atheistic sides. Theists refuse to accept the ignorance as evidence of an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality.
Atheists prefer the unanswered ignorance in the expectation that the ignorance will be eliminated in some future time. They are encouraged by the demonstrated advances in explanations of HOW things work. They ignore WHY they work as ineffable. This "fundamental" difference in willingness to abide in an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality is at the core of what separates the sides, NOT any actual "facts" or lack thereof. The facts about how things work are moot and do not affect the attitudes toward the "fundamental" unanswered issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Well, I think the modern use of why and how are conflated in linguistics quite a bit. But that aside....the question of "why" is a bit presumptive, don't you think?
To ask "why" is there a universe instead of not a universe, is presuming there is agency behind the universe. Asking "how" is there a universe instead of not a universe first, will give you better information to determine whether a "why" question is even sensible.
A bit like finding a crime scene with a dead person on the floor....and asking "why" was this person killed. We ought to first ask...."how " did this person die before asking "why", so as to deduce to murder.
The Why question will remain no matter what answer we find to the How question. That is what makes it a fundamental core issue that separates the sides.
But at base, it is the emotional import of the untested assumptions at the core of science (euphemistically called the God of the Gaps) that actually separate the theistic from the atheistic sides.
"God of the Gaps" does not refer to any such thing in science. It has nothing to do with science at all. The term "God of the Gaps" is a phrase that describes the tactic of theists to use areas of ignorance (any ignorance - not just scientific) as evidence for the existence of a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Theists refuse to accept the ignorance as evidence of an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality.
Then is it not great that atheists are not _offering_ our ignorance as evidence of any such thing. What atheists _are_ doing is saying "We do not know where this universe came from - and we will not allow you to use that ignorance to simple assert there is a conscious entity behind it".
You quite like using the word science - or science sounding words - to suggest that the things you claim - such as that our universe is conscious - or that human consciousness survives death of the brain - are somehow supported, made credibly, or congruent with science. But they are not. They are things you simply made up - and you wholesale insert into areas of human ignorance using your "God of the Gaps" tactic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Atheists prefer the unanswered ignorance in the expectation that the ignorance will be eliminated in some future time.
This is a dishonest mantra that you spew out time and time again - despite having actual atheists tell you it is wrong and you are merely strawmanning atheism. But do not let reality get in the way of your propaganda.
The reality is that it has nothing to do with what atheists "prefer" or "expect" or even "hope". It has everything to do with what we _acknowledge as true_. And what is true is that we have areas of ignorance where we are working hard to fill it in with knowledge and fact.
It is also true that people like you gravitate towards those areas of ignorance to insert new-agey woo narrative in in place of fact and knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
They are encouraged by the demonstrated advances in explanations of HOW things work. They ignore WHY they work as ineffable.
More of your dishonest distortions of reality. In fact I think you are wanton in distinguishing between "how" and "why" in many cases where there is no reason to. In many many cases they are the same thing. What you are desperate to do however is to build from "why" - to an explanation of that "why" that involves intent and design and - clearly - a conscious entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This "fundamental" difference in willingness to abide in an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality is at the core of what separates the sides, NOT any actual "facts" or lack thereof.
Except the fact point to the "fundamental" fact that there is every reason to think this is a cold, indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality. No facts point to anything else. The "difference" that "separates the sides" is one side acknowledges that reality. And the other side (yours) have nothing to offer but the fact they really - really really really - really really - want it to be otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The facts about how things work are moot and do not affect the attitudes toward the "fundamental" unanswered issue.
The only unanswered issue I see here - and has been unanswered for many years now - is what evidence you have to offer to support the claims you make. So far all you have ever provided is that you dozed off one day and got a really strong personal feeling that there was an external consciousness to you.
The Why question will remain no matter what answer we find to the How question. That is what makes it a fundamental core issue that separates the sides.
Well, Martin is quite correct. Asking "why" there is a universe presupposes a purpose and a purpose presupposes a goal and a goal presupposes an agency.
Which means whoever asked "why" there is a universe is begging the question in terms of there being an intelligent designer.
Naturally, we atheists take issue with that presumption.
Hopefully, these wide-ranging discussions will educate the lurkers about the specifics of various sciences by highlighting the wrong ideas about them as well as the correct ones. But at base, it is the emotional import of the untested assumptions at the core of science (euphemistically called the God of the Gaps) that actually separate the theistic from the atheistic sides. Theists refuse to accept the ignorance as evidence of an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality.
Atheists prefer the unanswered ignorance in the expectation that the ignorance will be eliminated in some future time. They are encouraged by the demonstrated advances in explanations of HOW things work. They ignore WHY they work as ineffable. This "fundamental" difference in willingness to abide in an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality is at the core of what separates the sides, NOT any actual "facts" or lack thereof. The facts about how things work are moot and do not affect the attitudes toward the "fundamental" unanswered issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
"God of the Gaps" does not refer to any such thing in science. It has nothing to do with science at all. The term "God of the Gaps" is a phrase that describes the tactic of theists to use areas of ignorance (any ignorance - not just scientific) as evidence for the existence of a god.
Then is it not great that atheists are not _offering_ our ignorance as evidence of any such thing. What atheists _are_ doing is saying "We do not know where this universe came from - and we will not allow you to use that ignorance to simple assert there is a conscious entity behind it".
You quite like using the word science - or science sounding words - to suggest that the things you claim - such as that our universe is conscious - or that human consciousness survives death of the brain - are somehow supported, made credibly, or congruent with science. But they are not. They are things you simply made up - and you wholesale insert into areas of human ignorance using your "God of the Gaps" tactic.
This is a dishonest mantra that you spew out time and time again - despite having actual atheists tell you it is wrong and you are merely strawmanning atheism. But do not let reality get in the way of your propaganda.
The reality is that it has nothing to do with what atheists "prefer" or "expect" or even "hope". It has everything to do with what we _acknowledge as true_. And what is true is that we have areas of ignorance where we are working hard to fill it in with knowledge and fact.
It is also true that people like you gravitate towards those areas of ignorance to insert new-agey woo narrative in in place of fact and knowledge.
More of your dishonest distortions of reality. In fact I think you are wanton in distinguishing between "how" and "why" in many cases where there is no reason to. In many many cases they are the same thing. What you are desperate to do however is to build from "why" - to an explanation of that "why" that involves intent and design and - clearly - a conscious entity.
Except the fact point to the "fundamental" fact that there is every reason to think this is a cold, indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality. No facts point to anything else. The "difference" that "separates the sides" is one side acknowledges that reality. And the other side (yours) have nothing to offer but the fact they really - really really really - really really - want it to be otherwise.
The only unanswered issue I see here - and has been unanswered for many years now - is what evidence you have to offer to support the claims you make. So far all you have ever provided is that you dozed off one day and got a really strong personal feeling that there was an external consciousness to you.
Other than that feeling - you have offered squat.
Take a deep breath and perhaps even meditate (as you claim you have done). No need to get your panties all in a bunch. I get it, you disagree with me on the fundamental Why issue. There is no way to resolve the disagreement. I do NOT experience an indifferent, mechanistic, purposeless reality. You do. End of story.
OK, I've looked and guess what? I found plenty of proof - for evolution!
It's all around us, can't you see it? It's so obvious.
Actually you never found any proof by looking around you that mankind evolved from a single celled amoeba or that humans evolved from a primate. That is just what you have been brainwashed to believe. Take off those rose-colored glasses. Take the red pill.
The Why question will remain no matter what answer we find to the How question. That is what makes it a fundamental core issue that separates the sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Well, Martin is quite correct. Asking "why" there is a universe presupposes a purpose and a purpose presupposes a goal and a goal presupposes an agency.
Which means whoever asked "why" there is a universe is begging the question in terms of there being an intelligent designer.
Naturally, we atheists take issue with that presumption.
You can disagree with the presumption but it is no less valid than your presumption and neither presumption can readily be refuted. Just to correct your analysis, it doesn't presuppose an intelligent designer or willful creator. It presupposes a Source that has purpose endemic to its continued existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
