Subsequent truths

[chadster1976]

IATIA "accepted as fact". I am very deliberate with my words.

Rhythm. Everytime we look under this stone we do come out with the same thing, those who try and argue "you can't prove he does/doesn't exist", those who say there is no reason for him to exist etc. My position (not really a proposal and certainly not an attempt at conversion or proving myself right) is simply that you cannot measure something that doesn't exist in the same physical sense that matter does. We can't measure God, so it is not something we can have a scientific debate on at present. This position may change in the future but until it does we can either have a philosophical debate or accept each others position as contrary to our own but valid until such evidence exists to make one incompatible with what is observed. Surely there is nothing scary in that?

[Norfolk And Chance]

You ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is often the best?

Personally, i'm sick of hearing from theists "we can't measure god scientifically" as if it is some sort of valid point. The obvious answer is that you can't measure anything that doesn't exist scientifically or any other way.

It never ceases to amaze me that this simple concept NEVER occurs to theists.

---

That isn't a reason for YOU to exist...

Reproduction is not a reason as such. If you want to take that philosophical step then an equally valid argument could be "God exists because he was necessary to start the universe". The philosophical argument has nothing to do with any scientific argument because it is completely untestable. You disagree with me on points of philosophy but don't add sloppy skepticism to a list of potential disagreements.

But we do not know that god was necessary to start the universe.

I see no valid reason why she was necessary to start it off.

The big bang started this universe off, but where did it come from? Did it just explode out of nothing? Possibly! No need for a god if that was the case. Did it explode out of the old material from an old universe? Possibly, there is no way of knowing before the big bang though.

What if the big bang was the infinite number big bang in a series going back for all time eternal? There'd never be a starting point because you could always go back one step beyond each new start into infinite time, and you'd never get to a cause so why would you actually need one?

We get trapped too much into thinking that the universe had to have a cause and that life has to have meaning - this is just the confines of human thinking but doesn't make it true.

[chadster1976]

It does occur to me that we currently postulate and accept many things we cannot directly measure. Think of how we measure and observe things now that were considered impossible only 2 or 3 generations back. I believe dark matter might exist and await confirmation. I believe God exists too. I accept I could be wrong on both of these points.
Personally, I don't understand why you're sick of hearing from theists such a basic philosophical point. I am not sick of hearing atheists tell me God doesn't exist. I enjoy such philosophical discussions and I enjoy scientific discussions. I also believe that we are as near to combining the two as we are to a unified theory. It's not impossible but we are a long way off yet.

[Norfolk And Chance]

It does occur to me that we currently postulate and accept many things we cannot directly measure. Think of how we measure and observe things now that were considered impossible only 2 or 3 generations back. I believe dark matter might exist and await confirmation. I believe God exists too. I accept I could be wrong on both of these points.
Personally, I don't understand why you're sick of hearing from theists such a basic philosophical point. I am not sick of hearing atheists tell me God doesn't exist. I enjoy such philosophical discussions and I enjoy scientific discussions. I also believe that we are as near to combining the two as we are to a unified theory. It's not impossible but we are a long way off yet.

We may postulate many things, such as what I just did there - what if the big bang wasn't the start but the nth big bang? There is utterly no way of ever testing that, however it's just a thought I had, but I don't believe it to be true.

Theists believe their own unevidenced untestable theory to be true, and that is the only example of this happening.

You keep on saying it is valid to believe god exists, no it isn't because there is no evidence to back it up

However it is perfectly valid for an atheist to say he doesn't believe there is a god and I don't need to even explain to you why.

You cannot compare the two stances validity.

[chadster1976]

Occam's razor also is entirely irrelevant. When Father William of Okham first posited it, he was remarking on observations in the natural world. It didn't question his faith (nor that of Thomas Aquinas who later reaffirmed the idea) because it was an observation and a good guide for solving problems. It is not a reason to throw out a layer of complexity just for the sake of making things easy, nor does it support an abandoning of philosophical debate or reasoning. I have noted, ironically, that the razor is oft misused in arguments where it has itself been over-simplified such that it loses accuracy.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Throw Occams Razor away all you will, but I still don't see how it is valid to believe in a deity. It's just not valid. It can't be, with no evidence. Believe away, but just don't try telling me it is equally as valid as me not believing.

[chadster1976]

With no evidence, surely it is more like Schrodinger's cat? He both exists and doesn't exist at the same time...

I respect your atheist opinion and if I ever feel I have evidence contrary to it, I will publish it in a peer reviewed paper! I assume you would do the same. Until then we can both hold our beliefs, just as the cat is both dead and alive.

[Norfolk And Chance]

With no evidence, surely it is more like Schrodinger's cat? He both exists and doesn't exist at the same time...

I respect your atheist opinion and if I ever feel I have evidence contrary to it, I will publish it in a peer reviewed paper! I assume you would do the same. Until then we can both hold our beliefs, just as the cat is both dead and alive.

I don't have any beliefs.

You do.

There is your critical difference right there.

A theist can never try and lump the two viewpoints together in a box marked "equally as valid as one another" as you have tried to now do several times because one is a belief and the other one isn't.

My view "I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence" IS completely logical AND valid.

Your view "I believe in god even though there is no evidence" ISN'T valid. Sure you can hold that belief, but it'll never be valid until you can back it up.

[fr0d0]

There is a reason for God to exist tho', it reasonably follows. There is no reason to suppose atheism, it is merely a denial of the reasoning.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There is a reason for God to exist tho', it reasonably follows. There is no reason to suppose atheism, it is merely a denial of the reasoning.

There is no reason for god to exist unless you suppose there MUST be a creator. That is just your supposition, not a logical reason for him to exist.

Logic does not require your sky daddy.