Why Agnostics Suck

[R0B0SH4RK]

^ Not sure that you're giving pro-existence of God arguments enough credit there. After all, I'm fairly sure that we can't observe certain subatomic particles directly, but we can interpret their existence through their effects on the observable world and therefore deduce their existence. Philosophically speaking, there are many compelling arguments for God that can made in the same vein as this (ie: the Argument from Design, although I am personally unconvinced by this one). Saying that all theists are merely "blindly believing in myths" is a fallacy.

When someone mixes religious theory with scientific theory, what are they? (And before you say "stupid", please answer my question sensibly)

If the "religious theory" involves God, you're a theist. If it does not, you're an atheist. The "scientific theory" is irrelevant since you can postulate circumstances in which both God and science can coexist. Darwin, for example, was not an atheist despite his findings and observations.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

Ah, so I'm a theist then :3

Thanks for answering my question :D

[frezal]

^ Not sure that you're giving pro-existence of God arguments enough credit there. After all, I'm fairly sure that we can't observe certain subatomic particles directly, but we can interpret their existence through their effects on the observable world and therefore deduce their existence.

We observe and test to theorize the existence of subatomic particles. There is no way to test the existence of god. There are far too many variables.

Philosophically speaking, there are many compelling arguments for God that can made in the same vein as this (ie: the Argument from Design, although I am personally unconvinced by this one). Saying that all theists are merely "blindly believing in myths" is a fallacy.

The problem with asserting there is a god is the same as asserting there is a Santa Claus. Sure, you could explain the presence of presents by saying that Santa did it, but is that really a logical conclusion, or is it blind faith?

Darwin, for example, was not an atheist despite his findings and observations.

You're not talking about that bullsh** bed side conversion, are you?

[123savethewhales]

Scientists having a religion does not imply that their faith comes from the scientific method.

The Scientific and Religious approach differs in 1 major aspect.  One involves observation, therefore falsifiable, the other involves faith, therefore not falsifiable.  Although in practice, many religion evolves to match contradicting observations over time, while many scientific dogmas resist contradicting observations for long periods of time.

Note that this has NOTHING to do with being right or wrong.  Both the scientific method and religion uses "inductive reasoning" and "inference to the best explanation".  And for most people who simply accept the "facts" without taking the time to understand, science is no different from religion.

The   problem with asserting there is a god is the same as asserting there is   a Santa Claus. Sure, you could explain the presence of presents by   saying that Santa did it, but is that really a logical conclusion, or is   it blind faith?

God is actually very unlike Santa.  Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified.  You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.

[frezal]

God is actually very unlike Santa.  Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified.

Just because you don't see the factory, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. (Just because nobody has seen a god, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.)

You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.

What if that's Santa covering his tracks? What if he subcontracts to the Chinese? Sure, it's evidence against the Intelligent Presents Theory, but it doesn't rule it out with 100% certainty.

[123savethewhales]

God is actually very unlike Santa.  Many features of Santa, such as a factory in the North Pole, can be falsified.

Just because you don't see the factory, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there. (Just because nobody has seen a god, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.)

It contradict the properties of Santa.  He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible.  So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite.  So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".

Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.

Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.

 
 

You just have to look for the "Made in China" somewhere on your toys.

What if that's Santa covering his tracks? What if he subcontracts to the Chinese? Sure, it's evidence against the Intelligent Presents Theory, but it doesn't rule it out with 100% certainty.

Science never rules anything out with 100% certainty.  Induction only covers all observed and interpreted information.

[frezal]

It contradict the properties of Santa.  He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible.  So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite.  So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".

Whether or not Santa can make things invisible isn't touched by the popular Santa mythos. Therefore, an invisible North Pole doesn't contradict anything.

Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.

And throwing in a layer of "god" complicates everything.

Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.

Faith isn't the right word, unless you are one of those people who thinks it's impossible to know anything.

Science never rules anything out with 100% certainty.  Induction only covers all observed and interpreted information.

Of course it doesn't.

[123savethewhales]

It contradict the properties of Santa.  He does not have the power to make his factory, himself, and all the elves and reindeer invisible.  So such a large factory will most certainly be detected by satellite.  So at least the conventional version made by Coke Cola is falsified "until new observation shows otherwise".

Whether or not Santa can make things invisible isn't touched by the popular Santa mythos. Therefore, an invisible North Pole doesn't contradict anything.

Actually Santa cannot be invisible, which is precisely why he has to sneak into your house at night when you are asleep.

"choosing not to be invisible" does not work because the tales specifically mention Santa does not want to be seen, and therefore sneaks in, and occasionally gets caught.

Of course, you can create a version of Santa with this ability, but doing so to explain such a small phenomenon contradicts "inference to the best explanation", where the "best" implies simplest.

And throwing in a layer of "god" complicates everything.

  "God made the universe in 7 days and that's that" is quite simple.  It only becomes complex when it stop fitting the observed data and religion makes up a bunch of nonsense like omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient in hope to match, creating a self contradicting paradox that doesn't require facts to disprove.

Random chance, infinity, and it's implications are far more complex.  Most theoretical physicists can not understand the theories that they themselves created beyond the mathematical construct.  Leonard Susskind for example are quoted for saying "nobody understands the holographic principle.  And just how many of us can even do any of those math to begin claiming we understand any of it?

Note that there are no reason why the simplest explanation is necessary true, it is just something scientists used with faith.

Faith isn't the right word, unless you are one of those people who thinks it's impossible to know anything.

Faith is the right word given there are no reason why the simplest explanation is true.

In the physical world, time and time again we end up with monstrosities such as the standard model of quantum mechanics and the human genome project.  Each layer unfold only ends up with far more complexity then anyone would have imagined.

[R0B0SH4RK]

Just so we're clear, I'm an atheist, Frezal's an atheist, and what's 123STW? I like how we're arguing about the merits of the side of the argument we think is wrong.

ANYWAYS:

@123STW: The generally accepted definition of God when debating its existence is:
- a personal being
- that created the universe
- that is all-powerful (has powers outside of the natural laws)
- that is all-knowing
- that is perfectly good (entirely against all evil)
- that loves ALL of us

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

[Urjak]

the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

You sure the Chicken and the Egg is a paradox?

[frezal]

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.

[Meganerdbomb]

Just so we're clear, I'm an atheist, Frezal's an atheist, and what's 123STW? I like how we're arguing about the merits of the side of the argument we think is wrong.

ANYWAYS:

@123STW: The generally accepted definition of God when debating its existence is:
- a personal being
- that created the universe
- that is all-powerful (has powers outside of the natural laws)
- that is all-knowing
- that is perfectly good (entirely against all evil)
- that loves ALL of us

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

[R0B0SH4RK]

I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
 

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.

Pretty sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?

[Meganerdbomb]

I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
 

That's why it's such a great troll argument.

To be fair though, it actually only assumes that the CONCEPT of god (as the greatest possible being) exists.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.

But even the evolution theory states the chicken came first =/

[G.K.]

No, the evolution theory says the egg came first.

[frezal]

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.

The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.

But even the evolution theory states the chicken came first =/

If you think evolution consists of animals just popping up into existence, then you're a complete dumb ass.

[123savethewhales]

I   hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on   the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove   itself correct.
 

So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are   actually critical to the theological question. Does these create   paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not   disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't   really valid arguments.

The chicken and egg paradox isn't   a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it   even make sense for the chicken to have come first.

Pretty   sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that   presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?

Clearly you don't understand what a self contradicting paradox is.

Chicken "can" lay eggs, other animals can also lay egg,
eggs "can" spawn chicken, it can also spawn other animals

No where in the logic does it say only chicken lays eggs, or that eggs only spawn chicken.  There are no paradox and evolutionary theory fits just fine in this.

In the case of God however
Only God "must" be omnipotent
Only God "must" be omnipresent
Only God "must" be omniscient

A simplest paradox is, can God destroy himself?  Under no condition can he hold both omnipotent and omnipresent when faced with this dilemma.

Self contradicting paradox IS nonsense, when "sense" is define as the use of logic.  Because it invokes the logically impossible.

An very uninteresting question would be "why must the world follow logic"?  Which is not worth thinking about as the truth of this will undermined any use of thinking.

[Sage]

People believe in God cause they want afterlife.

The rift between non-believers and believers is also the rift between those who are content with the life they are given and those who are not.

Then there's the third type who are miserable because they logically can't believe in God, yet still don't think ~80 years is long enough. For this group, abandoning science to find solace in the comfort of even a make-believe afterlife is justified, and I don't see the point in trying to persuade anyone one way or another.

[123savethewhales]

In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

Might as well go with this.

1.  I am God.
2.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.