Nature's Laws

[Cyberman]

Has rob said that he believes no gods exist?

[ignoramus]

Because the process of evolution doesn't require a god to exist.
Of course that doesn't mean anything.

It's the religios who are afraid that evolution proves them wrong with respect to "other" issues.
Go figure?  They're a wacky bunch, aren't they!

[Esquilax]

1: You'll have to elaborate.

It's simple: you say every law has a lawmaker, but in doing so you're ignoring that the word has two definitions, and that we have only ever observed laws of the first type having lawmakers. Laws of the second type, statements of facts deduced from observation, have never been observed to be made, and hence of course have no lawmaker. In fact, given that that type of law refers exclusively to the product of observations, the idea that it might have a maker is entirely nonsensical.

There is no special pleading involved, just a recognition that the word has two meanings, where theists sometimes want to pretend that everyone is using the first meaning all the time, even when they're clearly not.

2: I've not mentioned my God, or whether i even have one. I spoke about atheists ridiculing the "the concept of God", which is pretty well understood unless you are determined to be facetious: An all powerful prime-mover of all things.

I don't know that I've ever seen an atheist mock "an all powerful prime mover," mainly because that claim is so devoid of characteristics that it would be near impossible to make fun of, period. I've seen plenty of atheists make fun of specific gods, or point out that we simply have no evidence for a prime mover of any stripe, but it is not my position, nor is it the position of any atheist I've come into contact with, that the generic deistic prime mover could be categorically ruled out as a possibility. So appeals to some group of atheists that isn't this one, or nebulous mocking of the concept of god, doesn't particularly hold much water here.

Nor, I might add, does this claim you have that making fun of a thing denotes a denial of its existence, either, because that's patently absurd on the face of it. Comedians build their careers making fun of things that definitely exist, after all, so the idea that mockery denotes denial is falsified. You can mock things without denying they exist, and hence simply pointing to mockery from atheists, even if you were actually capable of doing so, does not prove the point you're trying to make.

3: I'm not dictating my opponents position, (and why is he necessarily an opponent?) i am objecting against the miss-classification of his position.

When somebody says that they disbelieve in god, and you say that no, actually they believe there are no gods, then you are dictating their position to them. Doesn't matter what you appeal to as justification, that's factually what you are doing; they are stating one thing, and you are asserting that you know better, for X reason.

4: Agnosticism, since its first use and always since unless used in a non-standard, metaphorical kind of sense, has always pertained to belief of Gods existence.

Laughably, easily disproven: the term was first coined by Thomas Huxley, who had this to say on the subject:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

"In matters of intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated." That's referencing claims to knowledge, not belief.

Lack of knowledge being the reason for having no belief, as no belief is only possible when there is a lack of knowledge. "An agnostic atheist believes in no gods, without claim to knowledge. A gnostic theist believes in a god and claims to know that one exists". You cannot believe in no Gods without a claim to knowledge, you cannot believe in anything without first assuming to be in possession of relevant truths.

Why? Because you say so?

Those "relevant truths", might not be enough to ground a certainty, but they constitute knowledge and hence become the grounds for the belief.

And if the claim to knowledge that grounds my atheism is knowledge that theists have not provided sufficient evidence to justify belief in any gods? Then what?

See, it's possible to do that, you know. Knowledge works in more ways than the two that are convenient for your argument.

This is why agnostic atheism is fundamentally incoherent, and the agnostic prefix is only ever used by atheists  (you never hear about agnostic theists) who want to wear the atheist label because of the perceived intellectual 'go faster' stripes, without actually inheriting any burden of proof requiring them to have a clue what they're talking about.

Incoherent in false dichotomy land, surely. Thankfully, I live in the real world.

If i believe in God only on the grounds of a pretty rainbow, i have to assume knowledge in order to relate that rainbow back to the idea of God. If an atheist believes there are no Gods because it rains on him one too many times, he must assume knowledge to be able to relate the rain back to the question of God, namely, the assumed truth that "if there was a God, he wouldn't let it rain on me so often". Even the weakest belief necessitates knowledge, hence is not compatible with agnosticism. That you aren't certain of Gods existence or not is irrelevant, and not grounds for claiming agnosticism.

My knowledge claim is this: it is unwise to believe in things without sufficient evidence, and theists have not provided sufficient evidence in favor of gods. This knowledge claim is sufficient itself to not believe in any gods, without outright rejecting them, as the first part of the knowledge claim allows for one changing their other beliefs as new evidence arises.

Put short, you don't get to tell me what my knowledge claims are, nor should you mistake the two you're able to think up in the moment for convenience, for the only two in existence.

[Freedom4me]

Because the process of evolution doesn't require a god to exist.
Of course that doesn't mean anything.

It's the religios who are afraid that evolution proves them wrong with respect to "other" issues.
Go figure?  They're a wacky bunch, aren't they!

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

[ignoramus]

From the way you are speaking, I am profoundly confident that you do not have an open mind on this matter.
I don't think you have what it takes to shake off the woo... I won't bother you again... nothing personal, of course.

Jim.

[Bad Wolf]

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

 Evolution is not a story about creation. It only adresses the changes over time of organisms that exist or existed. The theory you are talking about abiogenesis.

[FatAndFaithless]

Evolution is not a story of creation, and I have no idea why you think it involves any sort of supernatural event...or how you could verify such a claim.

[Tonus]

2: Most atheists do believe there is no God, and this is evidenced wherever atheists are. Whenever atheists ridicule the concept of God, which is all the time, it belies their position that they actively believe there are none. What they say is another matter because they are just trying to have their cake and eat it: ridicule God without wearing a burden of proof.

I believe that there are no gods.  None.  I believe this in the same way that I believe that there are no leprechauns, or tooth fairies, or loch ness monsters, and so on.  Which is to say that I use the same approach that theists use for everything except god(s).  Or more specifically, for everything including god(s) which aren't their specific god(s).

The whole issue of definitions and burden of proof would be moot if theists could ever produce even a single god, but so far the best we get is book after book of ancient urban legends, and moldy stains on a window that look like the virgin Mary.  Which isn't much different from the evidence we have for the existence of fairies and bigfoot and other things that even theists dismiss out of hand.

[Esquilax]

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.

So, do you know, like, literally anything about the second law of thermodynamics? Or did you just hear some creationist wiffle on about it, and decided it must be a slam dunk argument against evolution because it sounds so important? Because your misrepresentation of what the second law actually is, is so profound and complete that I have trouble believing that you even know what it is, and the idea that you just heard that it disproves evolution from some yokel and decided to repeat it is better, simply because it means you're ignorant, rather than straight up lying.

The second law refers to closed systems, which the universe is, but the Earth is not. In short:


Yes, there are actual comic strips that debunk what you just said. The overall entropy of a closed system always increases, but the Earth is not a closed system, since it has energy entering it from outside, most prominently from the sun, but from other sources too. Therefore, the arrival of life on Earth in no way contradicts the second law, because that refers to closed systems, which the Earth is not. I'd suggest reading a physics textbook before you decide you know everything you need to about the laws of physics, in future.

Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

Maybe you should do a google search for the Miller-Urey experiments, or Joan Oro's work in biochemistry, before you start telling us what can and cannot be falsified, because there's actually a lot of experiments out there that would falsify abiogenesis (which is what you're talking about here, not evolution, which has been confirmed by direct observation) had they failed, but instead they have all confirmed and broadened our understanding of the chemical processes behind it.

Can I ask why you felt it okay to come here and make these assertions that you have without looking up the current science on it beforehand? Why did you think you knew everything you needed to about this, when you knew nothing about this?

[Freedom4me]

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

 Evolution is not a story about creation. It only adresses the changes over time of organisms that exist or existed. The theory you are talking about abiogenesis.

Yes, I guess you're right.  But it is kind of fascinating that so many Darwinists seem to think that Darwin's story means that no god is necessary in order to explain the existence of living things.