If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

The bottom line is that if the universe were as disorganized and chaotic as you insinuated, we wouldn't even be doing science.

Right, once again you are assuming the existence of a god to make this all happen. Another example of the God of the gaps.

The foundational assumptions underlying science are that the universe is intelligible and predictable. So far, those have turned out to be reliable assumptions.

We live in a rational and intelligible universe which seems to be based on mathematical principles.

I have never seen the rational come from the irrational, nor the intelligible come from the unintelligible, nor seen something come from nothing. And I have never seen an atheist make a convincing case for how these miracles could have occurred.



Edit for spelling

Again... Just more using a God as an explanation for things that you can't explain.

The majority of your posts in this conversation are an attempt to rationalize plugging in a guide for things that you can't explain. The primary way you are trying to do that is by claiming that the universe is organized and that it literally couldn't exist, as it does now, without a God.

 

[gmark77]

I understand the concept very well. I wish you did.

The concept is this: Atheists want to pretend they are not doing the same kind of "believing" as theists...so they have warped the meaning of "atheist" to mean, "Anyone who does not believe in any gods."

Of course this means that babies, toddlers, incompetent people are all atheists. It also means that agnostics are supposedly required to consider themselves atheists.

It is a trick atheists are playing on themselves.

If you understood implicit atheism you would realize you use the exact same reasoning every single day.

You and Cy are simply too uneducated and simple to understand the concept. Sad really given how desperate you both seem to want everyone to think you are just the smartest.

 

[Cypress]

Another example of the God of the gaps.

Again... Just more using a God as an explanation for things that you can't explain.

It's not a gap because it's not a scientific question. There is no realistic chance science will ever be able to adequately explain what came before the big bang, nor to explain why the rational mathematical laws of physics exist or where they came from.

It's a philosophical question that is posed by the existence of known physical properties of the universe. The scientific laws and theories we already know about practically beg the question.

We can use logic and reason to rule certain things out. At the level of nature, you have never seen something come from nothing (at least where it violates laws of conservation), you've never seen the rational come from the irrational, you've never seen lawful organization come from randomness and chaos.

From there, it's not a huge leap of logic to infer some kind of immaterial rational agency underlies the organization we see in physics and cosmology.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If you understood implicit atheism you would realize you use the exact same reasoning every single day.

If YOU understood that "implicit atheism" is a joke implicit atheists are playing on themselves...and trying to get the rest of humanity to play their game....we could make some progress in our discussion.

Your suggestion that I do not understand implicit atheism is an absurdity...as I have been discussing it publicly for probably more decades than you have been alive.

Answer my two questions. Then we can see if it is more probable that your "beliefs" are a greater contributory to your decision to use "atheist" as a self-descriptor than the fact that you do not "believe in" the Christian god.

C'mon...do it. Answer those two questions honestly, if you can.

You and Cy are simply too uneducated and simple to understand the concept.

If you actually think that...you are yourself stupid. I am not uneducated nor simple. I do understand the concept. YOU apparently do not.

Sad really given how desperate you both seem to want everyone to think you are just the smartest.

I am definitely not the smartest person here in JPP...nor have I ever claimed to be or suggested I might be.

I AM NOT THE SMARTEST ONE HERE.

 

[ZenMode]

It's not a gap because it's not a scientific question.

It is absolutely, 100% a scientific question. . Space, time, the universe, etc is absolutely something that science studies and wants to understand better.

There is no realistic chance science will ever be able to adequately explain what came before the big bang, nor to explain why the rational mathematical laws of physics exist or where they came from.

Whether or not science can explain it is different than saying it can't be explained without a God.

It's a philosophical question that is posed by the existence of known physical properties of the universe. The scientific laws and theories we already know about practically beg the question.

We can use logic and reason to rule certain things out. At the level of nature, you have never seen something come from nothing (at least where it violates laws of conservation), you've never seen the rational come from the irrational, you've never seen lawful organization come from randomness and chaos.

From there, it's not a huge leap of logic to infer some kind of immaterial rational agency underlies the organization we see in physics and cosmology.

This is all really just more God of the gaps stuff. Science can't explain it and you want to figure out a way to rationalize a God making it all happen.

Basically everything you are saying falls into two categories. One, there are things that science can't explain and two those things have to be explained by a god.

If that's not God of the gaps, I don't know what is!

 

[gmark77]

If YOU understood that "implicit atheism" is a joke implicit atheists are playing on themselves...and trying to get the rest of humanity to play their game....we could make some progress in our discussion.

Your suggestion that I do not understand implicit atheism is an absurdity...as I have been discussing it publicly for probably more decades than you have been alive.

Answer my two questions. Then we can see if it is more probable that your "beliefs" are a greater contributory to your decision to use "atheist" as a self-descriptor than the fact that you do not "believe in" the Christian god.

C'mon...do it. Answer those two questions honestly, if you can.



If you actually think that...you are yourself stupid. I am not uneducated nor simple. I do understand the concept. YOU apparently do not.

I am definitely not the smartest person here in JPP...nor have I ever claimed to be or suggested I might be.

I AM NOT THE SMARTEST ONE HERE.

LOL.

Answer this question: do you believe my claim that I am 18' tall with 8 arms?

By your metric you MUST be "agnostic" about the claim. There's at least a 50% chance that I am indeed 18' tall with 8 arms in your world.

If you DISBELIEVE my claim then you know what "implicit atheism" is.

If you wish to deny that implicit atheism is real then you are required to be "agnostic" about my claim.

It's really as simple as that.


So ask yourself: are you agnostic about my claim or do you simply fail to believe it?

 

[Ross Dolan]

LOL.

Answer this question: do you believe my claim that I am 18' tall with 8 arms?

I do not.

By your metric you MUST be "agnostic" about the claim.

I you must mistakenly think that...fine with me, but you ARE mistaken.

There's at least a 50% chance that I am indeed 18' tall with 8 arms in your world.

If you say so.

If you DISBELIEVE my claim then you know what "implicit atheism" is.

I do disbelieve your claim...and that has nothing to do with what implicit atheism is. In fact it has nothing to do with religion at all.

If you wish to deny that implicit atheism is real then you are required to be "agnostic" about my claim.

Stop. Answer my questions.

It's really as simple as that.

No it is not. You are claiming that you are an atheist by dint of "not believing in any gods." You are essentially also claiming that I am an atheist...that all babies are atheists...all toddlers are atheists...and all mentally defective people are atheists. (That last one I am almost in agreement with.)

So ask yourself: are you agnostic about my claim or do you simply fail to believe it?

Answer my questions. There are only two of them...and they are clear.

Answer them.

By the way...I may not get back to you soon. I am an NFL fan...and the games are about to start. I'll try to get back to you regarding your answers to my questions as soon as possible.

 

[Cypress]

Photons are not sentient!

Nobody said that. Smoking crack this morning?

A photon is not the Universe!

Nobody said that. Smoking crack this morning?

Why do you thing a search engine has to do with anything??

Is this even English? Photons are the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, one of the fundamental and most easily observed properties of the universe.

Random equations mean nothing!

The mathematical laws of physics represent fundamental relationships that organize and define the behavior of the universe.

Geometry is not an an axiom!

The Axioms of Euclidean Plane Geometry:​

1. A straight line may be drawn between any two points.
2. Any terminated straight line may be extended indefinitely.
3. A circle may be drawn with any given point as center and any given radius.
4. All right angles are equal.
5'. For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.

https://www.math.brown.edu/tbanchof/Beyond3d/chapter9/section01.html

Time exists. Deal with it!

Different observers in different frames of reference experience time differently. Photons do not experience time, at least not in any way humans can understand. Abstract universal ideas and relationships are independent of time and of mind.

 

[Into the Night]

More word games.....

You can't blame your word games on me or anybody else, Void.

We know they move in specific ways,not randomly and they made those specific movements before man was able to understand why they moved how they do, right?

Feeling schizophrenic again? You are just one person, Void.
I guess you don't know what 'random' means either.

Buzzword fallacy.

No theory of science governs anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you going on the record officially denying all the randomness all throughout the universe?

Apparently.

 

[Into the Night]

That comment is too ridiculous to be anything but trolling.

YOU MADE IT!

 

[Into the Night]

He's a bad faith poster.

There would be no point in doing science if the universe, or large parts of it, were massively random.

Science is not a verb. You don't 'do' or 'make' science.
The Universe is unorganized. Science is not the Universe.

The pivotal assumptions underlying science are that nature is intelligible and predictable.

Science is not the Universe. The Universe is unorganized.

 

[Into the Night]

The bottom line is that if the universe were as disorganized and chaotic as you insinuated, we wouldn't even be doing science.

Science is not a verb. Science is not the Universe. The Universe is unorganized.

The foundational assumptions underlying science are that the universe is intelligible and predictable.

Science has no 'foundational assumptions', other than it's definition. Science is not the Universe. The Universe is not sentient.

So far, those have turned out to be reliable assumptions.

They are YOUR incorrect assumptions. The Universe is unorganized.

We live in a rational and intelligible universe which seems to be based on mathematical principles.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Try English. It works better.

I have never seen the rational come from the irrational, nor the intelligible come from the unintelligible, nor seen something come from nothing. And I have never seen an atheist make a convincing case for how these miracles could have occurred.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Try English.

 

[Into the Night]

^^ Cuckoo for cocoa puffs

Can't answer the question, eh?

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody said that. Smoking crack this morning?

YOU said that. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Nobody said that. Smoking crack this morning?

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Is this even English?

A misspelling, but yes. Answer the question put to you.

Photons are the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, one of the fundamental and most easily observed properties of the universe.

Apparently not so easily observed, since it took quite a long time before anyone came to that description.

The mathematical laws of physics represent fundamental relationships that organize and define the behavior of the universe.

No theory of science governs anything. The Universe is unorganized. There is no 'behavior' of the Universe. A photon is not the Universe.

The Axioms of Euclidean Plane Geometry:​

1. A straight line may be drawn between any two points.
2. Any terminated straight line may be extended indefinitely.
3. A circle may be drawn with any given point as center and any given radius.
4. All right angles are equal.
5'. For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.

Euclid is not the Universe either.

https://www.math.brown.edu/tbanchof/Beyond3d/chapter9/section01.html

Different observers in different frames of reference experience time differently. Photons do not experience time, at least not in any way humans can understand.

Photons are not sentient.

Abstract universal ideas and relationships are independent of time and of mind.

The Universe is not sentient.

Random equations mean nothing. The Universe is not random equations.

 

[Into the Night]

Right, once again you are assuming the existence of a god to make this all happen. Another example of the God of the gaps.

There is no 'gap'. Buzzword fallacy. Your word games won't work.

Again... Just more using a God as an explanation for things that you can't explain.

He's not explaining anything.

The majority of your posts in this conversation are an attempt to rationalize plugging in a guide for things that you can't explain.

He is not explaining anything.

The primary way you are trying to do that is by claiming that the universe is organized and that it literally couldn't exist, as it does now, without a God.

It's dead wrong. The Universe is unorganized.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not a gap because it's not a scientific question.

It's not a question at all.

There is no realistic chance science will ever be able to adequately explain what came before the big bang,

Science has no theory about any past unobserved event. The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science.
The Theory of the Big Bang states that the Universe began as an intense point of energy and matter, exploding into what we see today.

The cause of this event is not descrbed. Any cause outside the Universe is itself a paradox.

nor to explain why the rational mathematical laws of physics exist or where they came from.

Buzzword fallacies (rational). Redefinition fallacy (theory<->law).
Redundancy (math->math).

Mathematics was created by Man.
Every theory of science was created by Man.
Every law of physics is a transcription of a theory into a mathematical form. That equation is called a 'law.'
No theory can ever be proven True.
A theory of science CAN be proven False.
A circular argument cannot be proven True or False.

It's a philosophical question that is posed by the existence of known physical properties of the universe.

You deny philosophy here. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). The Universe is unorganized.

The scientific laws and theories we already know about practically beg the question.

Fallacy fallacy. No theory of science is based on any fallacy. Science does not govern anything. Science is not the Universe. The Universe is unorganized.

We can use logic and reason to rule certain things out.

You deny logic. You apparently never learned it.

At the level of nature, you have never seen something come from nothing (at least where it violates laws of conservation), you've never seen the rational come from the irrational,

Random words. No apparent coherency. Go learn English.

you've never seen lawful organization come from randomness and chaos.

Organization is not 'lawful' or 'unlawful'. It is simply organization.

Yes, it is quite possible for organization to come from chaos. Every time someone builds a car, a computer, a watch, a phone. That is organization coming out of chaos.

Organization is not matter.
Organization is not energy.

The Universe is unorganized. The Universe is not a car, a computer, or a watch.

From there, it's not a huge leap of logic to infer some kind of immaterial rational agency underlies the organization we see in physics and cosmology.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. You are denying logic again.

 

[Into the Night]

If YOU understood that "implicit atheism" is a joke implicit atheists are playing on themselves...and trying to get the rest of humanity to play their game....we could make some progress in our discussion.

Your suggestion that I do not understand implicit atheism is an absurdity...as I have been discussing it publicly for probably more decades than you have been alive.

What is 'implicit atheism'?

 

[Cypress]

is absolutely, 100% a scientific question. . Space, time, the universe, etc is absolutely something that science studies and wants to understand better.

Whether or not science can explain it is different than saying it can't be explained without a God.

This is all really just more God of the gaps stuff. Science can't explain it and you want to figure out a way to rationalize a God making it all happen.

Basically everything you are saying falls into two categories. One, there are things that science can't explain and two those things have to be explained by a god.

If that's not God of the gaps, I don't know what is!

From the religious perspective, if a higher law-giver created the natural laws, this law-giver is not living in the gaps. That perspective is that science discovers how god works. It's not shrinking god to the gaps.

There is no realistic chance science and the worldview of physical materialism will ever adequately explain why the universe was created, why the natural laws and universal physical constants exist, and where they came from. I also personally believe we will never adequately be able to replicate or understand the origin of biology and bioinformation, or consciousness either.

Those are always to going to be philosophical questions.

 

[Margot]

Science is not a verb. You don't 'do' or 'make' science.
The Universe is unorganized. Science is not the Universe.

Science is not the Universe. The Universe is unorganized.

The Universe is completely organized! Except for the Spirit in humans, that's why this world is insanity squared!