What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Bradskii]

Are you still pretending that the discussion about dragons was about dragons and not an analogy?

As I was the one that brought it up I can quite confidently say that it was not an analogy.

And this was amusing, but I'm getting bored. Do you have anything new and/or interesting?

 

[Fervent]

As I was the one that brought it up I can quite confidently say that it was not an analogy.

Considering it's not original to you, but a common trope, you're either being dishonest(par for the course with you) or you don't understand the tropes that you bring up. Was it not to challenge faith-based beliefs? Do you think someone in the thread believes there is a dragon in their basement? Or is it an analogy for things people do take on faith, such as the existence of God? If it wasn't meant analogously, what point were you making with it?

 

[stevevw]

You're citing AI as an authority????

Not really. As with the first Ai on the paradigm shift from Darwinian to the MS I linked a source. I have done the same for the ongoing paradigm shify from the MS to the EES in the past plenty of times so I know the Ai is supported.

Given that Lamarckian and Darwinian explanations of evolution are assumed to be mutually exclusive and given that the ES accommodates Lamarckian mechanisms of inheritance, it should follow that the ES constitutes a paradigm shift away from Darwinism https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.

The EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108]. Its predictions permit the derivation of new hypotheses and thus inspire novel and progressive research in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

Linking this back to the OP regarding the formation of the universe which is associated with cosmosology and ultimately physics including quantum physics and similar paradigm shift is also occuring.

Primarilt the shift in evolution relates to the role of the subject for which evolutionary forces are acting on. The EES flips this and makes the subject central as the controller and director of their own evolution working with environments, ecosystems, niches and other creatures. This this makes the organism/creature a construster of evolution rather than being passive.

The same with physics where QM is making the observer central to what is reality.

The science method excluded the subject/observer to be able tomeasure the objective world. The problem is the subject/observer is part ofthe equation we must include to be able to truely understand evolution and reality.

The latest discoveries from the JWT are a case in point. I like John Wheelers idea of the participatory Univers Principle.

John Wheeler's participatory universe principle suggests that reality is created by observers, and that no phenomenon is real until it is observed. He argued that the universe is a self-excited circuit, where observers (like us) are an integral part of bringing the universe into existence. This idea, also known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), posits that the universe requires observers for the collapse of the wave function, meaning it couldn't exist without life.

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

 

[Bradskii]

Considering it's not original to you, but a common trope, you're either being dishonest(par for the course with you)..

That's strike 3. You're out.

 

[Fervent]

That's strike 3. You're out.

Perhaps I give you too much credit in assuming that you understand what you put forth, especially when you crib arguments from Sagan and other "skeptics." Maybe you really don't grasp that the argument is meant analagously, and not literally discussing the existence or non-existence of dragons.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

True. And it wouldn't be enough to convince you either. I'm not sure why you thought it might convince me.

I'd need to examine it myself. And to save you some time, if you said there was a cat in your basement then I'd have no reason to disbelieve you. An ordinary claim needs no extraordinary evidence. Whereas the first actual example of a supernatural creature will need more than your say so.

As I said, It's a lack of evidence. Adragonism is not a faith position.

Okay. Let's say I give you what appears to be a large scale, about 4 inches wide. You take the scale to a lab and DNA tests reveal that it is reptilian, but it does not match any known species. Would that be enough proof?

 

[BCP1928]

Okay. Let's say I give you what appears to be a large scale, about 4 inches wide. You take the scale to a lab and DNA tests reveal that it is reptilian, but it does not match any known species. Would that be enough proof?

No. All you would have "proven" is that there is a large reptilian scale of some unknown species alleged to have come out of somebody's basement.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay. Let's say I give you what appears to be a large scale, about 4 inches wide. You take the scale to a lab and DNA tests reveal that it is reptilian, but it does not match any known species. Would that be enough proof?

Not in itself. It could just be a species of lizard that hasn't been discovered before. From here: Are there over 3000 lizard species? - The Environmental Literacy Council

'Currently, there are approximately 7,000 recognized species of lizards worldwide, but this number is continually evolving as scientists discover new species and refine existing classifications.'

But it's a good start. We're looking for evidence that will convince us. When we have what we consider to be sufficient, well founded evidence, then our belief in dragons will be evidence based. If you had no evidence and just said that hey, Bradskii wouldn't lie about this, so it must be true, then it would be faith based.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No. All you would have "proven" is that there is a large reptilian scale of some unknown species alleged to have come out of somebody's basement.

Although I was asking @Bradskii , because he agreed, I will continue. Now, what I have done is proven my point about evidence being subjective. Bradskii stated that he needed physical evidence. Yet, when provided physical evidence, it wasn't enough. I would argue that there are numerous such physical evidences that point to the existence of God. I am not going to go into details because this isn't an apologetics discussion. Why is faith required to believe there is no God? The same reason why faith is required to believe God exists. Agnostics would at least say that, although skeptical, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. The atheist will say, "there is no God." Just like opponents to Einstine argued that black holes do not exist. Of course, technological advancements proved Einstein correct, but there are no such technology to measure the supernatural. Faith is what drives the skeptic to say, there is no god.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You defined anything demonstrable as "natural" and then you exclusively look to that methodology to provide you with evidence. Your latter definition is post hoc, though at least it isn't circular.

I suspected you would fail to recognize "regular" and "uniform" and you did. And again you are incorrect in your very first claim about "anything demonstable". Notice I didn't include chemistry or biology.

What else do you think I was going to label "natural"?

Though you've pigeonholed yourself into what the current consensus is, but I suspect if the consensus changed you'll move your definition again.

I'm not concerned that this thread will last that long.

I've run out of energy to reply. I'll come back to this later.

 

[Bradskii]

Although I was asking @Bradskii , because he agreed, I will continue. Now, what I have done is proven my point about evidence being subjective. Bradskii stated that he needed physical evidence. Yet, when provided physical evidence, it wasn't enough.

That's right. And you are partly right when you say that evidence is subjective. The exact same evidence may convince you but not me. For us to agree then the evidence needs to be incontrovertible. It needs to reach a point when it would be perverse to deny it. As I said above:

'When we have what we consider to be sufficient, well founded evidence...'

What generally happens is that each fact that we find will increase (or decrease) our belief in the matter which we are investigating. I've previously compared belief to a flywheel. We are given some information about a matter that tends us to a belief and the flywheel starts to slowly spin. Every fact, or at least every fact that we accept as being true (it doesn't have to be true), will increase our belief and the wheel spins faster. Or it will put some doubt in our mind and the wheel slows.

As regards the scale that you sent for testing, it slowed my flywheel. It was originally turning in the 'non-belief' direction because as far as I am aware, from all the information I have been exposed to, dragons don't exist. It certainly wasn't enough, on its own to even stop the wheel, let alone reverse its direction. So there'd need to be, from my point of view, a lot more evidence that I need to accept, before I change my mind.

I would argue that there are numerous such physical evidences that point to the existence of God.

As I said, the evidence doesn't need to be true. You just need to accept it as being true. If you accept enough of it then belief will automatically follow. It doesn't mean that I will necessarily accept the same evidence as being true or consider it sufficient to change my position.

Why is faith required to believe there is no God? The same reason why faith is required to believe God exists.

I'm going to have to post a definition here:

Faith: a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

That is obviously the context in which it's being used here. So having no 'spiritual conviction' I cannot believe based on that. So I turn to the evidence. And after poking around looking at it, or for it, for something over 50 years I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that what evidence that has been presented is most definitely insufficient.

Agnostics would at least say that, although skeptical, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. The atheist will say, "there is no God."

This one doesn't. As absolutely sure as I am of my position, I've a scientific mindset in that I cannot be 100% certain of anything. Even Dawkins has said that there is a chance that he's wrong.

Just like opponents to Einstine argued that black holes do not exist.

Because of the lack of evidence.

Of course, technological advancements proved Einstein correct...

The evidence changed a lot of minds.

...but there are no such technology to measure the supernatural. Faith is what drives the skeptic to say, there is no god.

No. It's as above. A lack of evidence that any given atheist accepts.

 

[Yttrium]

Faith is what drives the skeptic to say, there is no god.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

A skeptic wouldn't say that there is no god. A skeptic would just not be convinced that there is a god. At the same time, a skeptic wouldn't be convinced that there is no god. A skeptic is simply someone who doubts the claim.

I remain highly skeptical of Biblical origins, but I'm also skeptical of the Big Bang theory. It's incomplete and in need of some explanations. Still, Big Bang seems to me to be the more likely explanation of the way the universe looks right now based on the preponderance of the evidence, such as the red shift in galaxies and the cosmic background radiation. But it would be perfectly fine with me if it turned out that God started the Big Bang.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

A skeptic wouldn't say that there is no god.

Let me rephrase for clarification. Faith is what drives an atheist to say there is no god.

 

[Yttrium]

Let me rephrase for clarification. Faith is what drives an atheist to say there is no god.

If an atheist says that, sure.

 

[Fervent]

I suspected you would fail to recognize "regular" and "uniform" and you did. And again you are incorrect in your very first claim about "anything demonstable". Notice I didn't include chemistry or biology.

What else do you think I was going to label "natural"?

How would some phenomena be demonstrated to you that wouldn't come to be subsumed as "natural"? And why do you think not "including' chemistry and biology is significant? Are those not simply derivatives of physics in your mind?

I'm not concerned that this thread will last that long.

I've run out of energy to reply. I'll come back to this later.

 

[Ophiolite]

Faith is what drives an atheist to say there is no god.

Please provide verifiable evidence that I say there is no God as an act of faith. Alternatively, provide other evidence that you really can read my mind.

Or, do the honest thing, and accept that my reason for doubting the existence of a God is the absence of any meaningful evidence. I began by believing in God based on faith, then chose not to accept the concept, based on the lack of evidence. If new evidence comes up, I may change my mind. Whether or not you accept my word, I shall continue to refrain of telling you how you think; as a small courtesy.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Please provide verifiable evidence that I say there is no God as an act of faith. Alternatively, provide other evidence that you really can read my mind.

Or, do the honest thing, and accept that my reason for doubting the existence of a God is the absence of any meaningful evidence. I began by believing in God based on faith, then chose not to accept the concept, based on the lack of evidence. If new evidence comes up, I may change my mind. Whether or not you accept my word, I shall continue to refrain of telling you how you think; as a small courtesy.

Read the thread. I have already explained it. If you are making the truth claim, "there is no god," it is a faith based claim. Because the reality is that you do not know there is no god, you just have faith that their is not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How would some phenomena be demonstrated to you that wouldn't come to be subsumed as "natural"? And why do you think not "including' chemistry and biology is significant? Are those not simply derivatives of physics in your mind?

I was sticking to the fundamentals. Looking for some common ground on the definition of "natural". I know that there is disagreement on the full nature of biology. Do you think that any of the four forces are not natural?

 

[Fervent]

I was sticking to the fundamentals. Looking for some common ground on the definition of "natural". I know that there is disagreement on the full nature of biology. Do you think that any of the four forces are not natural?

Depends on how we understand "natural", if we include a rider about irrelevance of deities then no. If we strictly mean the regular nomological functions than sure. My issue isn't with physicists only considering current consensus physical models while conducting science, it is when the model becomes reified and presented as an excuse for atheistic worldviews and subsequenr refusal to engage with criticisms of those worldviews that come through philosophy. So yes and no, depending on application.

 

[Bradskii]

Read the thread. I have already explained it. If you are making the truth claim, "there is no god," it is a faith based claim. Because the reality is that you do not know there is no god, you just have faith that their is not.

It's not a faith claim. You can have faith to believe something that has no verifiable evidence. But you can't have faith to not believe something if evidence has been presented. It's the lack of valid evidence which convinces you. I thought we did this dance. You know, dragons and basements.

You can ask any atheist you know if they believe in God. They will say no. If you ask them if there is a God they may say that there isn't if they are sure beyond any reasonable doubt. If you ask them why they say there is no God then they will tell you that there is no convincing evidence that has been presented to them that He exists.

Faith is a position you take in the absence of evidence. If evidence is presented for something and you believe or not believe then neither of those cases are faith based. They are evidence based.