There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka

:up:

Well, that was an interesting few pages of exchange to read. Nothing new in the theist vs atheist dialogue that I could garnish but the trenches between the two have been dug pretty well.
Its also 'nice' that individuals from both sides do leave their trench now and then and kick a wee common thought about in no man's land, to the entertainment of all those watching from either trench.
I have a couple of questions, neither is of great importance but are of interest to me.
One comes from the repeated posting from @god must be atheist regarding belief/faith/knowledge.
@EugeneW has a personal theory on the structure and workings of the Universe based on his own studies in physics and quantum physics in particular. I think his proposal would be labeled as a hypothesis at this stage, within the rules of the scientific method. In my opinion, he has 'faith' in his hypothesis and he 'believes' it is correct. But for his hypothesis to become a theory, he would need more empirical evidence to support his hypothesis.
So is it the case, that ultimately, any faith-based or belief-based proposal has AT BEST, the same status as a scientific hypothesis and is no more valid than any other human musings such as a faith in the proposal that Harry Potters ancestor, also conveniently called god created the Universe using the spell (first revealed here folks, on this very thread) 'Creatus Universeearse!' (no, the second word of this incantation is not my 'true handle,'). The Jedi religion has been reported (could be fake news) as the fastest-growing religion in the world. Is Jediism related to panpsychism? are such, in my opinion, deserved mockeries of theism deserved?

Humans are naturally attracted to naturalism. @L'éléphant types about dreaming about supernatural human skills such as 'floating' or perhaps 'flying.' Dreams can certainly produce interesting scenarios but for years I have attempted to dream lucidly and I can often force my rational conscience to interrupt my dream and insist that the scenario playing out is BS or boringly based on a film I watched that evening or an issue I am currently worried about or the fact I drank a coffee before falling asleep etc and I can then alter what is being presented by my 'sub conscience' or ID or whatever label you prefer for such, to obey the direction of my conscious. I have almost full recall when I awake, at least from a little before I 'took over' the dream. So, my second question is:
Why are we so attracted to/intrigued by all things 'supernatural?' How many here have ever genuinely experienced anything they cannot explain by natural means when they apply rational thinking?
No supernatural ability has ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, so I conclude that its just a product of human fear. Born from all the scary reptilian screeches we heard when we hid in caves at night because we were unable to fight in the dark! No natural night vision ability. You would think a benevolent god would have at least given us night vision when we lived in the caves, if it had then perhaps we would not have needed to develop the ability to sleep for 8 hours a day.

Do you really belief laws of nature and the basic stuff in it are clever enough to create themself? — EugeneW

Create themselves? :brow:
What does that have to do with anything anyway?

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
[...]
Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.
Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left). — Gregory A

Seems the thread has veered off the opening post, and become a gallery for bloviating the usual old apologist arguments.

Create themselves? :brow:
What does that have to do with anything anyway? — jorndoe

This thread is about the invalidity of atheism. The laws of nature are stupid. Can't bring themselves into existence, nor the matter they are about. So it needs intelligence to bring them about. Gods, that is.

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is nothing going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably always use god/s as an emotional crutch. You see, you are not presenting an argument, you are just using words to construct a rudimentary appeal to mystery and emotion. I can do it in reverse and it's no better. — Tom Storm

Alrighty, I somehow failed to make you believe in God. How ironic that probably no one here is trying to convince you to believe in God. :razz:

I did not say religion has a monopoly on psychopathy. Although in some theocracies it does. I see you prefer deflection to argument. — Tom Storm

Again, no one is trying to convince you to believe in God. Continue on with your fake entitlement though. :wink:

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not... — Tom Storm

No one is trying to convince you to believe in God. Goodness, how hard is it for you to be around people who talk about God without you asking them to prove God exists?

Justification? One of many reasons for anti-theism perhaps. — Tom Storm

Hey, it's your right to not believe in God, I won't argue with you there. As I originally said, I think it's very important to respect the opinion of atheists. It's you who seems to have an issue respecting the opinion of theists.

But still you avoid discussing yours and resort to deflections Ok I get it, it's hard if you have no good reasons. — Tom Storm

Just stop already. You are hardly some sort of authority that anyone needs to impress or prove to you their own personal belief in God. Again, the thread is about the "invalidity of atheism". I know the difference is apparently too subtle for you to comprehend. For you, the "invalidity of atheism" is an opportunity to make believers prove God exists.

And you know what? I don't care that people are theists (as long as they don't want to establish a theocracy)... — Tom Storm

Acting innocent again, eh? :yawn:

...I'm just on a forum and when theists use words that sound like they know stuff when it's way more likely they don't, I sometimes enter the discussion. — Tom Storm

Stop insulting my belief in God. Again, you are not some sort of authority that I need to prove to you that God exists. That's silly.

I will say this though, God is very real. All you have to do is just look at the world around you. I know you think this is all a game and you can just copy my words and then input them with your atheist beliefs. But as I said from the beginning, if you can't realize that God created this world then you are probably never going to believe in God. What's wrong with being an atheist by the way? If you don't believe in God then you probably should have very little to say. But yet you talk so much about wanting proof of God. It's almost like you keep forgetting that you don't believe in God. You're not even staying on topic and discussing the "invalidity of atheism".

Here are my two cents: we should all respect what atheists have to say. Many atheists are incredibly smart people. The real difference between believers and atheists is that atheists tend to think (in my humble opinion) that people need or should prove that God exists. But really there is no way to prove that God exists at least not in the way that you want proof. By the way, you can't even explain what proof would look like to you, because you're just here to troll believers. Typical, old atheist agenda. Some things never change.

The laws of nature are stupid. — EugeneW

And you prove this constant once again, lil D-Ker: "stupid is as stupid does". :yawn:

And you prove this constant once again, lil D-Ker: "stupid is as stupid does". — 180 Proof

And precisely because of my stupidity I understand the laws of nature. It's all just about love and hate. We are living proof. 90 for me, 90 for you. Mutually orthogonal. I guess orthonormality will never be reached.

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not... — Tom Storm

The existence of the universe and all creatures in it is the evidence of gods, considering it has no intelligence to create itself.

Speaking in tongues (glossolalia). — Agent Smith

No, I've seen glossolalia, and there's no software for translating it.

III matches 111 rather nicely. — EugeneW

It does, but I was going for |||.

It's a symbol I used for a piece in a chess-like game I once made up.

or maybe you're hyperclocking — Agent Smith

Can we hyperclock? :chin:

It does, but I was going for |||.

It's a symbol I used for a piece in a chess-like game I once made up. — lll

Chess-like? Curious...

So is it the case, that ultimately, any faith-based or belief-based proposal has AT BEST, the same status as a scientific hypothesis and is no more valid than any other human musings such as a faith in the proposal that Harry Potters ancestor, also conveniently called god created the Universe using the spell (first revealed here folks, on this very thread) 'Creatus Universeearse!' — universeness

So is it the case, that ultimately, any science-based proposal has AT BEST, the same status as a theist hypothesis and is no more valid than any other human musings such as a faith in the proposal that Harry Potters ancestor, also conveniently called "the scientist" created the Universe using the spell (first revealed here folks, on this very thread):

"Mani Fold, Calabi Yau
Super Sym, M-theo Ry
Strings Vibrate Twistor Tau
Holo, Brane, Let It Be!"

Chess-like? Curious... — EugeneW

There's a huge family of chess like games. I toyed with my own variants (still do at times.) Some pieces, like the |||, could only move through other pieces. They are like ghosts or electricity. I view game creation as kind of sculpture. Playing them can be a blast too ( I prefer fast versions like bullet chess.)

The existence of the universe and all creatures in it is the evidence of gods, considering it has no intelligence to create itself. — EugeneW

The brilliance of the theory of evolution is that it makes the emergence of complexity and intelligence from the simple and unintelligent surprisingly plausible. On Youtube you can find videos of genetic algorithms that create little pieces of artificial intelligence that get more adaptive and complex over time. Obviously they are simplified models, but I think they provide insight.

So is it the case, that ultimately, any faith-based or belief-based proposal has AT BEST, the same status as a scientific hypothesis and is no more valid than any other human musings such as a faith in the proposal that Harry Potters ancestor, also conveniently called god created the Universe using the spell (first revealed here folks, on this very thread) 'Creatus Universeearse!' — universeness

Well said.

For me a big difference between a theological speculation and a scientific hypothesis is that I expect the latter to offer me a map from uncontroversial observables to uncontroversial observables. In other words, it counts something we can all agree on and predicts something we can all agree on. It may use postulated entities like quarks or flamperpoofies or whatever in its calculations, but its rubber should meet the road somehow. Falsifiability is an imperfect criterion but a gesture in the right direction. If I can't be wrong, I may be practicing self-hypnosis and nothing more.

Can't bring themselves into existence, nor the matter they are about. So it needs intelligence to bring them about. Gods, that is. — EugeneW

A classic objection to this approach is to ask where the gods come from. If stupid physical laws need a creator, why not those more-complex creators? If a watch needs a watchmaker, why doesn't a watchmaker need watchmakermaker? And why doesn't a watchmakermaker need a watchmakermakermaker? End so end end so end?

Some pieces, like the |||, could only move through other pieces. — lll

Only through other pieces? So not over free fields? Interesting... I duuno though if this ghost piece is proof of gods.

The brilliance of the theory of evolution is that it makes the emergence of complexity and intelligence — lll

Yeah, it's fantastic and amazing how simple basic matter field can deliver the complexities of the organisms on our planet, between the heat of Sun and cold of dark universe. Somehow all creatures are equal. People=ant=elephant=... All conscious bodies. People being free and aware on top. There were only loose particles once. Intelligence, be it ant-like or human-like, are basically all the same, except that we can talk about it. The basic stuff is not intelligent. Where did it come from. This thread gave me a wonderful idea for a short story. I send it in when finished.

A classic objection to this approach is to ask where the gods come from — lll

Eternal beings. The universe is eternal too but too stupid too create its own basic stuff. Eternal intelligent beings don't need a creator.

Only through other pieces? — EugeneW

Yes. So the more standard pieces are essential to the ghost king.

I duuno though if this ghost piece is proof of gods. — EugeneW

I wouldn't say it is. It plays on the idea of incarnation or possession.

I had another piece, a real bloodthirsty fellow, who could capture friendly pieces (as many in a row as possible) in order to grab an enemy piece. This allows for spectacular surprise attacks at great cost/sacrifice. Potentially you could sacrifice almost all of your pieces on a single move. If you play chess, you know that sacrifices are a big part of the drama, the bigger the better.

Intelligence, be it ant-like or human-like, are basically all the same, except that we can talk about it. The basic stuff is not intelligent. Where did it come from. This thread gave me a wonderful idea for a short story. I send it in when finished. — EugeneW

Cool. I look forward to checking that story out.

Eternal beings. The universe is eternal too but too stupid too create its own basic stuff. Eternal intelligent beings don't need a creator. — EugeneW

Good reply. Some might question whether eternal beings are sufficiently intelligible. And the existence of these eternal gods seems to function in your theory as a brute fact. In other words, you seem to suggest that there simply are eternal beings, for no particular reason. Is this not just as weird as the idea of there being dead junk for no reason that eventually evolved so that it talk about itself ?

Stop insulting my belief in God. Again, you are not some sort of authority that I need to prove to you that God exists. That's silly. — chiknsld

This is a philosophy forum - we debate ideas like god/s. If this triggers you, deal with it.

I'm assuming you are sober now (as per your own admission) - your last response (which you have now sanitised) was quite a display of bile and judgement. I'm assuming it was the booze talking, not your theism?

You seem to be a vulnerable, sensative theist who is quick to jump at shadows. Here's a collection of nasty, unwarranted phrases from your latest response that suggest you are a dishonest interlocutor who has created a phantom Tom to dump abuse on.

Continue on with your fake entitlement though. :wink: — chiknsld

I know the difference is apparently too subtle for you comprehend — chiknsld

Acting innocent again, eh? — chiknsld

you probably should have very little to say. — chiknsld

It's almost like you keep forgetting that you don't believe in God — chiknsld

you're just here to troll believers. — chiknsld

All of these seem to have metastasized from your earlier comment.

You're making a mockery of atheism. — chiknsld

Now it would be great if you could construct responses in future without resorting to personal attack and bogus assumptions. It makes it look like you have nothing to say, which may not be the case.

But really there is no way to prove that God exists at least not in the way that you want proof. — chiknsld

Ok, I think most of us already knew this. But you have dodged my question from the beginning and I am assuming you won't face up to it even now.

You not only believe there is a god you you indicated that you know how god thinks. How could you expect to say something like that on a philosophy forum of all places and not have some ask for justification?

God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe. — chiknsld

We might have avoided the need for you to get worked up and nasty if you had just answered the question. How do you know how god/s think?

Continue on with your fake entitlement though. :wink:
— chiknsld

I know the difference is apparently too subtle for you comprehend
— chiknsld

Acting innocent again, eh?
— chiknsld

you probably should have very little to say.
— chiknsld

It's almost like you keep forgetting that you don't believe in God
— chiknsld

you're just here to troll believers.
— chiknsld — Tom Storm

I was on your side @chiknsld but Tom made an excellent point here! If the atheist doesn't want to believe, this will not make them!

We have to be more sneaky and sleazy...

Is this not just as weird as the idea of there being dead junk for no reason that eventually evolved so that it talk about itself ? — lll

I had the same thought. And you are right. But somehow eternal dead shit isn't dead and has to have gotten a divine spark to be farted into existence. I believe even fundamental particles posses elementary love and hate, and these could be the eternal beings like the gods. But still... if they are made with intention (or by accident as in my story...) seems somehow to give them more meaning.

But somehow eternal dead shit isn't dead and has to have gotten a divine spark to be farted into existence. — EugeneW

You made me laugh, friend.

I believe even fundamental particles posses elementary love and hate, and these could be the eternal beings like the gods. But still... if they are made with intention (or by accident as in my story...) seems somehow to give them more meaning. — EugeneW

Fair enough. Are you influenced by Empedocles?

You made me laugh, friend — lll

I owed you one, friend! Two, in fact! The coffee stains on my clothes are the silent witnesses!

Well, he was influenced by Xenophanes, and I hold X responsible for the rise of the modern concept of one unified non imaginable omni God. And together with Plato he laid the basis for the modern notion of one and only never reachable reality. I don't like both and sympathized with the ancient gods. Not as a myth but as a reality. Empe seems okay though. Thought he was god and showed off his wealth. No problem. He did good things with his wealth.

It's bedtime, and the Moon is fuller than ever! Catch you later, buddy! Always good discussion with you. Next time Hofstadter?