(October 31, 2014 at 11:20 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: And I don't know why you're claiming that Bell's theorem is some sort of universally accepted law in science, opinions on it have very wide ranges including many criticisms of the theorem. Especially notable because according to wikipedia (not the font of knowledge but about as deep as you or I can get with our lack of specific expertise)

Quote:Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality.

I don't think you understand Bell's theorem. The theorem predicts that.

(October 31, 2014 at 11:33 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 11:20 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: And I don't know why you're claiming that Bell's theorem is some sort of universally accepted law in science, opinions on it have very wide ranges including many criticisms of the theorem. Especially notable because according to wikipedia (not the font of knowledge but about as deep as you or I can get with our lack of specific expertise)

I don't think you understand Bell's theorem. The theorem predicts that.

I completely don't understand Bell's theorem, not even close. Apologies if I made a wrong conclusion, I guess I was just more trying to push the fact that Bell's Theorem (according to wikipedia of course) still isn't some absolute truth.

(October 31, 2014 at 11:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 11:33 am)rasetsu Wrote: I don't think you understand Bell's theorem. The theorem predicts that.

I completely don't understand Bell's theorem, not even close. Apologies if I made a wrong conclusion, I guess I was just more trying to push the fact that Bell's Theorem (according to wikipedia of course) still isn't some absolute truth.

Bell's theorem is what we got at the moment. Your counter argument is "Heywood you are wrong because Bell's theorem isn't some absolute truth...it could be wrong...it just hasn't been shown wrong yet"

Isn't that an atheism of the gaps argument?

(October 31, 2014 at 11:40 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 11:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I completely don't understand Bell's theorem, not even close. Apologies if I made a wrong conclusion, I guess I was just more trying to push the fact that Bell's Theorem (according to wikipedia of course) still isn't some absolute truth.

Bell's theorem is what we got at the moment. Your counter argument is "Heywood you are wrong because Bell's theorem isn't some absolute truth...it could be wrong...it just hasn't been shown wrong yet"

Isn't that an atheism of the gaps argument?

Nope. I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying you're unjustified in your assertion that quantum randomness is somehow indicative of God. Bell's theory could be absolutely right, I don't know if it is, I'm completely unqualified to comment on that. But even if Bell's theory were 100% correct and there is no local cause for quantum randomness, it's an entirely other step to call that non-local cause "god" as if it has anything to do with your god.

(October 30, 2014 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think we're saying the same thing MA. Likewise I find the Christian position severely misrepresented. The theist position, well I ascribe to that too. Haywood, as I see him posting now and recently, has a perfect understanding of what constitutes atheism. That's my point. The objections are nit picking. You're not allowing him to generalise where generalisations are warranted. I find that a dishonest diversionary tactic.

It's neither dishonest nor diversionary. What's dishonest and diversionary is generalizing about the people you're talking to inaccurately, despite their objections. It's not like we're not going to notice. It's not like he can't be more specific and address the people who actually fit his preconceptions. It's not like those of us who don't fit that description are going to accept it, or even those who do if we know it isn't accurate.

I hope you two wouldn't be this clueless if you went on a forum inhabited primarily by a racial minority that you spent so much time arguing with them about what must be true of them if they're members of that minority.

It's not our fault that Heywood won't ask what terms would be acceptable for the people he means to be talking about. If I found an atheist on a Quaker site talking about them like they were Catholics, I'd set her straight. He could start with his definition, ask what to call it, and move forward. But he's right where he wants to stay.

---

(October 30, 2014 at 7:57 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not me personally, but I once had a friend who was an atheist and believed in reincarnation.

I knew one who bought into astrology. And don't get me started on the conspiracy wingnuts. Or Raellians.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: We have evidence that carbon can form in stars. Is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon knowledge about abiogenesis? It is not. It is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon. Is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form knowledge of abiogenesis? It is not....it is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form.

Do you also deny that the combustion engine has anything to do with the construction of cars?

I said already, I acknowledged from the start, that we have confirmation only of the first few steps. Reminding me of that doesn't change the argument; abiogenesis is still the best supported hypothesis for the origins of life. It's where the smart money goes.

I also predicted that you'd attempt to minimize what I said by asserting that we only have the first few steps of the process down, but I think the predictability of theistic responses has a strong enough history that it stands on its own.

Quote:The rest of your post is a straw man. I am not arguing that having no knowledge of abiogenesis is a reason to believe in God. I am arguing something completely different. I am arguing that if your basis of rejecting belief in God is a lack of knowledge of God, then you should reject a belief in abiogenesis as well. Why? Because we have 0 knowledge or experience with abiogenesis.

Which is a lie, unless you're willing to come out and say that experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can arise by natural processes have nothing to do with the development of life by natural processes. Which would be literally the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

Quote:Personally.....I think it is okay....its not dirty....its not taboo....to believe in somethings of which you have no knowledge. But if your going to criticize me for believing in something which I have no knowledge....don't get butthurt when I point out you are doing the same.

Speaking of strawmen...

Esquilax for the win.There is difference between beleaving something that has evidence to support it even if it isnt absolute,to believing something for which there is no evidence at all.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: You can have beliefs which contradict knowledge.

I can't knowingly have a belief that contradicts my own knowledge. YMMV. I suppose one could value something more than truth enough to do so or hold two apparently contradictory things to be true and refuse to give up either.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 3:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I can't see any way in which this cannot be interpreted as an argument from ignorance.

Negative, I wasn't even arguing about God. I was arguing his analogy is flawed.

Arguments from ignorance don't have to be about God.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: His comparison that we know a murder happened even though we don't witness it is analogous to knowing abiogenesis happens without witnessing it simply does not follow. Why?

Because it's what the evidence points to.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: Murder we have lots and lots and lots of first hand experience. Abiogenesis our experience or knowledge is none. We got some speculation and that's it.

We have a trail of fossils that get more and more simple the older they are. The oldest detectable fossils are of single-celled organisms. Before that, nothing. There's no reason to expect anything older than that to leave a trace. But there's an excellent reason to think anything ever found older than that will be simpler than what came after it. We have organic chemistry that tells us that it is at least theoretically possible for a self-replicating molecule to form spontaneously under the right conditions, and the evidence points to those conditions being present in the Hadean era. If something CAN happen, it WILL happen, given enough opportunities. We don't know exactly how many opportunities it would take for the odds of it occurring to be 50/50, but there were certainly billions of opportunities.

Now, one thing that explains all of that (no life followed by simple life) is that at least one time out of all the billions upon billions of opportunities for it to happen in the conditions conducive to complex organic chemistry that existed 3.6 to 4.2 billion years ago, a molecule capable of self-replication, and therefore of evolution, was formed. After that, it would have developed and eventually led to organisms that can leave fossils.

The next runner up would be that the first replicating molecule or even the first cell was extraterrestrial. That would also fit the evidence, but life starting when it logically would have been able to start on its own makes an earthly origin more parsimonious.

Then there's the supernatural explanation, which is ad hoc (never suggested before the evidence showed life was simpler the farther back in time you go), that God or some supernatural thing 'poofed' the first cell into existence.

Of those three propositions, the first one best fits the evidence. It's certainly not enough for a conviction, or even to prove there's 'been a murder', but it's certainly enough to provisionally think there's been a murder until you find evidence otherwise. We don't have the weapon or the corpse, but there's lots of blood and signs of violence and someone's missing who had a lot of enemies.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: You can always claim its a process which exists or has existed....but just hasn't been observed yet. Its not something that can be proved impossible.

Any of the specific scenarios can be proved impossible or contrary to evidence in theory. Or a rabbit fossil could show up in the Hadean era, that would do the trick overnight.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: God probably exists
God probably does not exist.

If you are indifferent towards either of the above propositions...then yes...you lack a belief.

In neither of those conveniently probabilistic scenarios does one hold a belief that God definitely not exist. We've never said we don't think God probably doens't exist. If we were exactly 50/50 on the topic we'd just be agnostics.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you are not indifferent, you have made a choice or commitment to favor one over the other. You have formulated a belief.

The belief that God probably doesn't exist, right. We've never claimed not to have THAT belief, which you only recently introduced. And the word 'committment' has not proper place in describing that position. The definition of belief is:

be·lief/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2.trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

While committment is:

[i]com·mit·ment/kəˈmitmənt/
noun
1.the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
2.an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action.

I don't doubt you know what you're doing by trying to conflate these terms, and it's both dishonest and weak.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: We have evidence that carbon can form in stars. Is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon knowledge about abiogenesis?

It's a necessary precondition.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is not.

Gee, maybe that's why no one said it is. Is refuting arguments no one has made going to be a standard part of your M.O.?

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon. Is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form knowledge of abiogenesis? It is not....it is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form.

And no one said it is. At this point, you are talking to yourself, I gather because the only one here you think you can win on this one with is the atheist in your head.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: The rest of your post is a straw man. I am not arguing that having no knowledge of abiogenesis is a reason to believe in God. I am arguing something completely different. I am arguing that if your basis of rejecting belief in God is a lack of knowledge of God, then you should reject a belief in abiogenesis as well. Why? Because we have 0 knowledge or experience with abiogenesis.

Except we don't have zero knowledge. We have a mystery with convincing clues that point to abiogenesis. We have LIMITED knowledge, which you are conflating with zero knowledge, apparently due to sheer desparation.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: Personally.....I think it is okay....its not dirty....its not taboo....to believe in somethings of which you have no knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with making an HONEST mistake.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: But if your going to criticize me for believing in something which I have no knowledge....don't get butthurt when I point out you are doing the same.

Which is the very root of your need to equate limited knowledge with no knowledge at all. What you believe isn't the BEST available explanation for anything (though arguably it used to be), but it's AN explanation for anything, and being unsatisfied with faith as a justification, you want to at least be able to say 'tu quoque'.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 1:16 am)Heywood Wrote: God or gods exist.
God or gods do not exist.

They would not view them indifferently like they would these propositions.

Heywood has brown hair.
Heywood has red hair.
Heywood has hair of some other color.
Heywood has no hair.

Maybe my belief is wrong.

And now you're back to definite propositions instead of probabilistic ones, You're making me dizzy.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 10:34 am)ChadWooters Wrote: To what extent then does the category of atheism overlap naturalism? Seems to be at least 90% on AF at least.

And considerably less among atheists in some other places. Don't tell me you may actually be getting close to acknowledge that athests here may actually have OTHER qualities besides their atheism that are relevant to our discussions?

No, I daren't even hope.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 10:57 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 10:13 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yet.

And nobody claims that's supernatural.

If Benny Hinn prayed and miraculously an amputees limb was restored...nobody would say that was supernatural either....except perhaps Benny Hinn and his followers. The atheists would claim there is a natural explanation but science just hasn't found it yet.

Yeah, it's really convenient to posit that out-and-out miracles at the beck and call of religious figures and no one else wouldn't convince any atheists when you don't have anything remotely close to being THAT convincing. That way you can tell yourself that it's not that you don't have any ammo, it's that we're bulletproof.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 11:05 am)Heywood Wrote: Supernatural is really a meaningless word in my opinion. Anything that exists including God if He exists, is part of nature. However if God exists we should see non local causes for some events. Quantum randomness is one of those things which Bell's theorem tells us cannot be explained by any theory of local hidden variables. Does it prove God? No but is suggest that there is more to reality than what can be observed locally. It suggests there is a hidden reality beyond our observation and ability to explain.

The non-local cause thing would actually have been an interesting check mark for your side...if any of you had posited it BEFORE we discovered quantum weirdness.

God doesn't get you to any specific scientific discoveries in advance, because God works equally well as an explanation for anything, no matter what the case turns out to be. Nothing is more or less probable when you factor 'if God' in. If the God hypothesis could be used to make fruitful and confirmable predictions, that would be evidence in its favor and would at least prove that it's a useful model if it came through often enough.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 11:17 am)Heywood Wrote: In effect science has concluded that there are events which happen, which cannot have local causes. Isn't that something atheists claim we should observe if God exists?

I have never, ever heard an atheist claim that.

(October 31, 2014 at 10:34 am)ChadWooters Wrote: To what extent then does the category of atheism overlap naturalism? Seems to be at least 90% on AF at least.

For starters, even if it was 100% on AF, we comprise a relatively small set of all atheists, meaning your problem is still with philosophical naturalism and not atheism. Secondly, I'm not exactly going to take what it "seems to be" to you more seriously than I will the statements of the actual people involved; you have a habit of trying to tell other people what their atheism is, after all.

Lastly, we need to acknowledge the distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism, of which I'd think the majority of us affirm the latter, rather than the former. Methodological naturalism is not a worldview either, merely a pragmatic concession with regards to what we can detect and test.

(October 31, 2014 at 10:57 am)Heywood Wrote: If Benny Hinn prayed and miraculously an amputees limb was restored...nobody would say that was supernatural either....except perhaps Benny Hinn and his followers. The atheists would claim there is a natural explanation but science just hasn't found it yet.

If. Such a small word but it has the power to dominate context.

In this scenario, the atheist would say let's examine and eliminate all the natural explanations first, before entertaining a god-powered one.