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.
Lovely, you assuming I had never heard of Russell. Pure arrogance on your part, where your arrogance exceeds your knowledge. Not a good look. There was another poster on here who had a similar failing, but they seemed to have changed for the better recently.
This is not a complicated matter like the existence of God. I can simply prove that your arrogance in making assumptions about me exceeds your knowledge or ability.
That was made in March of this year! Turns out Peter600 didn't need Irkle to know about Russel. What a surprise! What arrogance from Irkle's part to assume so.
Now let's show some other thing you posted in reply to me that are full of hot air.
Irkle: "No serious philosopher or theologian has ever asserted that the fact God can't be disproven is of any evidentiary weight or is a reason to believe."
Irkle: "I clearly stated that Russell was one of the greatest philosophers and mathematicians of the twentieth century, sweetie."
Betrand Russel, through the use of his teapot, asserts that the fact God can't be disproven is of evidentiary weight and a reason not to believe (or rather to not have belief either way).
OK, fair enough, you previously cited Russell's orbiting teapot. If you'd learn to spell Russell consistently it would give your posts a bit more of a ring of authority.
Oh, now we're going to debate what Russell said. His point - which I heartily endorse - is that metaphysical claims can't be objectively proven. I can't prove the existence of a deity; an atheist can't prove the nonexistence of a deity.
Russell's orbiting teapot is a curious example because it would be a claim about the natural order. We can scientifically investigate the natural order. At some point, the scientific evidence would become so overwhelming, and the claims of an orbiting teapot so desperate and ridiculous, that all rational people would say "The claim of an orbiting teapot has been disproven. There is no orbiting teapot."
The same isn't true of claims about the existence or nonexistence of a deity. For starters, they aren't claims about the natural order. But unlike the teapot, the evidence points in enough different directions that there is no consensus, even among scientists. Many intelligent, rational, highly educated and inquisitive people firmly believe in the existence of a deity; others don't.
Russell did not say the fact that God can't be objectively proven has any evidentiary weight. That would be nonsense. He said atheism should be the default position and that theists have the burden of proof. This is fallacious. There is no "burden of proof" or "default position." We each reach our own convictions on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that seem most convincing to us.
Even if we were merely talking about the natural order and the scientific evidence regarding its origin, there is no burden of proof or default position. This is exactly the point of the - boo! hiss! - Intelligent Design movement. Let the evidence lead where it will. If the best explanation of the evidence is "this was designed," then we will have a fully-scientific explanation with an unidentified and (most probably) scientifically-unidentifiable designer. So be it. The fury directed at the ID movement isn't because "They're all closet Creationists!" - which they plainly aren't - but because they are willing to entertain a potentially non-naturalistic explanation, one potentially consistent with deism and theism.
Quote:
Conclusion, Irkle can't be consistent between posts over successive days, never mind more complex philosophical questions. Or Irkle's estimation of themselves exceeds their ability. Probably both.
You don't want to start down this path, pal. Believe me - you don't.
Russell did not say the fact that God can't be objectively proven has any evidentiary weight. That would be nonsense. He said atheism should be the default position and that theists have the burden of proof. This is fallacious. There is no "burden of proof" or "default position." We each reach our own convictions on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that seem most convincing to us.
Yes we can each reach our own convictions. People are free to believe in God or Bigfoot or Santa or the sun orbiting teapot. But in Russell's own words:
"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
That is the crux of the matter. If there is something that cannot be proved or disproved, is it sensible to believe in it? The answer from Russell is "no."
Often theists give an argument along the line of - I can describe a concept of God that is not explicitly contradicted by what we observe. Thus it must be true. That is a fallacious argument.
I can create a justification of Bigfoot that not explicitly contradicted by what is observe. That is not sufficient for me to say that Bigfoot exists:
- Bigfoot is a primate. We know primates exist. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot is 10-15ft tall. We know animals can grow this tall or even taller. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot is intelligent. We know of primates who are intelligent. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot still hasn't been caught and classified by biologists. We know new species are discovered constantly, so there are still species we haven't yet discovered. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Hence Bigfoot must exist.
If I gave that argument, I should "rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
OK, fair enough, you previously cited Russell's orbiting teapot. If you'd learn to spell Russell consistently it would give your posts a bit more of a ring of authority.
Oh, now we're going to debate what Russell said. His point - which I heartily endorse - is that metaphysical claims can't be objectively proven. I can't prove the existence of a deity; an atheist can't prove the nonexistence of a deity.
Russell's orbiting teapot is a curious example because it would be a claim about the natural order. We can scientifically investigate the natural order. At some point, the scientific evidence would become so overwhelming, and the claims of an orbiting teapot so desperate and ridiculous, that all rational people would say "The claim of an orbiting teapot has been disproven. There is no orbiting teapot."
The same isn't true of claims about the existence or nonexistence of a deity. For starters, they aren't claims about the natural order. But unlike the teapot, the evidence points in enough different directions that there is no consensus, even among scientists. Many intelligent, rational, highly educated and inquisitive people firmly believe in the existence of a deity; others don't.
Russell did not say the fact that God can't be objectively proven has any evidentiary weight. That would be nonsense. He said atheism should be the default position and that theists have the burden of proof. This is fallacious. There is no "burden of proof" or "default position." We each reach our own convictions on the basis of the evidence and reasoning that seem most convincing to us.
Even if we were merely talking about the natural order and the scientific evidence regarding its origin, there is no burden of proof or default position. This is exactly the point of the - boo! hiss! - Intelligent Design movement. Let the evidence lead where it will. If the best explanation of the evidence is "this was designed," then we will have a fully-scientific explanation with an unidentified and (most probably) scientifically-unidentifiable designer. So be it. The fury directed at the ID movement isn't because "They're all closet Creationists!" - which they plainly aren't - but because they are willing to entertain a potentially non-naturalistic explanation, one potentially consistent with deism and theism.
You don't want to start down this path, pal. Believe me - you don't.
I have often felt the "burden of proof" falls on anyone who wants to make claims to others and justify them. Doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. Somebody feels they don't need to prove anything to anyone else certainly doesn't need to prove anything to anyone else. Certainly not in this forum!
If interested in making a convincing argument that one knows, believes or understands the truth of these matters however..., well then I think the request to prove it is only appropriate and pretty well to be expected. People who want to make claims they admit they cannot prove to anyone else are not atheists generally speaking. Atheists have no qualms about properly classifying claims, evidence and proof so as to distinguish the truth of these matters from mere speculation and the reliance on hearsay.
Some say the proof that god exists is all around us. Others readily admit there is no proof of God even though they believe in God. I can better understand those who believe in God but admit there is no proof other than their personal experience. This is because over the course of many decades asking for such proof, it has become clear no one can produce any. I suspect this is because there isn't any, and I suspect there isn't any because there is no god.
Yes we can each reach our own convictions. People are free to believe in God or Bigfoot or Santa or the sun orbiting teapot. But in Russell's own words:
"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
That is the crux of the matter. If there is something that cannot be proved or disproved, is it sensible to believe in it? The answer from Russell is "no."
Often theists give an argument along the line of - I can describe a concept of God that is not explicitly contradicted by what is observe. Thus it must be true. That is a fallacious argument.
I can create a justification of Bigfoot that not explicitly contradicted by what is observe. That is not sufficient for me to say that Bigfoot exists:
- Bigfoot is a primate. We know primates exist. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot is 10-15ft tall. We know animals can grow this tall or even taller. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot is intelligent. We know of primates who are intelligent. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Bigfoot still hasn't been caught and classified by biologists. We know new species are discovered constantly, so there are still species we haven't yet been discovered. No contradiction with observable evidence
- Hence Bigfoot must exist.
If I gave that argument, I should "rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
This is precisely why you atheists so vehemently reject the pantheist, panentheist, and panpsychist versions of God. They completely eliminate the issue of existence and abscond with all the previously categorized evidence of the natural order.
This is precisely why you atheists so vehemently reject the pantheist, panentheist, and panpsychist versions of God. They completely eliminate the issue of existence and abscond with all the previously categorized evidence of the natural order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I recognize it as such and am grateful I didn't have to trod it. But I find Irkle's or EscalaMike's landing on the orthodox Christian Dogma bemusing just because it has been dominant for millennia. It seems to be as foolish as accepting a flat earth theory for the same reasons.
pantheist, panentheist, and panpsychist around for much longer and not as foolish as accepting a flat earth theory?
Na, und? This still does not address any of my substantial posts.
What's up with THAT?
What's up with that is that responding to your knee-jerk one-liners as you parse every post of mine into 25 separate posts is exhausting and a waste of time. So I have pulled the plug. You may declare victory and thump your chest like Tarzan.
pantheist, panentheist, and panpsychist around for much longer and not as foolish as accepting a flat earth theory?
Interesting, do delineate why you feel this way.
The defining variable for me is our consciousness. It is completely irrational to me to accept that our consciousness just somehow "emerged" from a dead physical and chemical reality. It has no resemblance to the devoid of life, mechanistic, deterministic, attributes of the processes that seem to define reality.
Our consciousness has the ability to create ex nihilo and is functionally unmatched by any processes anywhere else in our Reality. That is too improbable to me, so our Reality itself must be conscious and must possess the attributes our consciousness possesses. That probably means it is responsible for creating ex nihilo all of existence.
This fits the panentheist version of God wherein physical or material reality is the immanent portion and consciousness is the transcendent portion. We are similarly configured by having a physical body and brain that is immanent and a consciousness that is transcendent (capable of creating ex nihilo and unconstrained in its imagination by the physical laws of our immanent reality).
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.
