Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[variant]

No magic, logic. See previous post about creators and how this means by definition they can't be constituted of the physical stuff like the creation is, which means the necessity for a "supernatural" (i.e., beyond the natural or physical) realm. Which means any standard that utilizes the physical (science, empiricism, etc.) is misplaced when applying to this supposed supernatural entity.

There are things that can't be "tested" in a scientific or empirical sense which we know to be true if we don't go ultraskeptic and assume the world doesn't exist or that our senses are unsound, etc. You're equating the limitation of knowledge with empiricism, more specifically science. There are other ways of knowing things.

Your stilted metaphysics is unlikely to convince people of your stilted beliefs in the supernatural.

 

[Loudmouth]

And no, Sagan believes that testability is the limitation of truth and/or knowledge.

False. Sagan is saying that testability is the limitation for knowledge alone. If something has no evidence, it stays in the faith based belief bin.

If you can't test it, throw it to the flames. That's scientism. Period.

And yet Sagan nor I ever claim that.

That actually sounds like you and your as yet rationally or empirically unsupported reason for using the standard you do that we're talking about.

Do you really believe anything that anyone says?

 

[Received]

No, it doesn't. There is no reason that our univese can't be a part of a larger natural universe or natural process just as the natural Earth is part of a larger system of natural planets and galaxies.

All you are doing is scrambling for excuses as to why there is no evidence just as it happens in Sagan's essay on invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages.

And you're committing the same blasted assumption you accuse me of doing in the second paragraph with your first paragraph. There is *zero* empirical support for multiverses; only fantastical and wishful thinking mathematical models which have absolutely *no* predictive validity and therefore no place in science.

 

[Received]

Your stilted metaphysics is unlikely to convince people of your stilted beliefs in the supernatural.

All metaphysics are on stilts, variant.

 

[Received]

False. Sagan is saying that testability is the limitation for knowledge alone. If something has no evidence, it stays in the faith based belief bin.

Is there a difference?

Do you really believe anything that anyone says?

Sure!

 

[variant]

All metaphysics are on stilts, variant.

Well then you're going to have a problem using it as evidence...

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there a difference?

Yes. Something can be true without us having knowledge of it.

Sure!

That is a failed epistemology.

 

[Received]

Yes. Something can be true without us having knowledge of it.

1) Where does Sagan say this much?
2) What are examples of things that can be true without having knowledge of them? Wouldn't you say that believing there are things that are true without us ascertaining them/knowing them is precisely that -- a belief (faith)? Seeing how you can't know the things...you say are true...

That is a failed epistemology.

Justify. Please.

 

[Received]

Well then you're going to have a problem using it as evidence...

Evidence in what sense?

 

[variant]

Evidence in what sense?

That your beliefs are justified.

Your metaphysics are just as questionable as your beliefs (no more in evidence).

 

[Received]

That your beliefs are justified.

Your metaphysics are just as questionable as your beliefs (no more in evidence).

Okay. Can we use a different word than "evidence" here? My head is spinning because I'm thinking of scientific evidence, and not the broader meaning you're using.

That said, here's a provocative thought: no metaphysical stance or assumptions we have that constitute our standards have "justification" when you get down to it.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sagan was a Jewish boy whose Daddy was an atheist and that was the beginning of his deconversion. However, Sagan ended up a pantheist, not an atheist. He was also convinced he would find evidence of extraterrestrial life, which he died without finding.

 

[variant]

Okay. Can we use a different word than "evidence" here? My head is spinning because I'm thinking of scientific evidence, and not the broader meaning you're using.

It's really all the same stuff though, all concepts are evidenced in a similar manner.

What generally differs is how well we can do it (it depends on our resources).

That said, here's a provocative thought: no metaphysical stance or assumptions we have that constitute our standards have "justification" when you get down to it.

If you want to be an extreme skeptic yes (you don't get to assert Gods by being an extreme skeptic though).

But, I think you share all of my epistemological assumptions, I don't think I share yours.

 

[Received]

It's really all the same stuff though, all concepts are evidenced in a similar manner.



If you want to be an extreme skeptic yes (you don't get to assert Gods by being an extreme skeptic though).

But, I think you share all of my epidemiological assumptions, I don't think I share yours.

Do you mean epistemological?

But yeah, that's what it's all coming down to: differing epistemologies.

What I'm trying to get at is that your standard for justification is too rigorous and ultimately becomes inapplicable the deeper you get with looking at things. Especially here, apropos my discussion with loudmouth, about the standards we have or bring to the table in terms of the justification we have *for them*. And then there's the tricky problem of determining what justification we have for justification; i.e., why we should follow justification, which puts us into axiomatic or instinctive beliefs grounds, which means precisely grounds that we have no justification for in the sense you're presenting it as.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you're committing the same blasted assumption you accuse me of doing in the second paragraph with your first paragraph. There is *zero* empirical support for multiverses; only fantastical and wishful thinking mathematical models which have absolutely *no* predictive validity and therefore no place in science.

Your claims require evidence for an absence of multiverses, which you don't have. That is what I was demonstrating.

 

[Received]

I would hope that at the end of the day, instead of atheists being like, "religious people hold ridiculous beliefs, and science is the best," or whatever, etc., that they would be like, "well, there are really complicated philosophical underpinnings to all standards we use, and it's not like God really is too far out there a theory given this complication..."

 

[Received]

Your claims require evidence for an absence of multiverses, which you don't have. That is what I was demonstrating.

Dude, you're speculating by your own previous use of the word when you say there can be multiverses and offer no evidence along the testability standard which you just put on a pedestal. And on top of this you're assuming that because you have a speculation that somehow doesn't involve God that this speculation must by definition be better and the default standard: better no Gods than any Gods at all, no matter how much non-scientific speculation you present.

This is just falling apart like a house of cards, loudmouth.

 

[variant]

Do you mean epistemological?

Darned auto-correct.

What I'm trying to get at is that your standard for justification is too rigorous and ultimately becomes inapplicable the deeper you get with looking at things. Especially here, apropos my discussion with loudmouth, about the standards we have or bring to the table in terms of the justification we have *for them*. And then there's the tricky problem of determining what justification we have for justification; i.e., why we should follow justification, which puts us into axiomatic or instinctive beliefs grounds, which means precisely grounds that we have no justification for in the sense you're presenting it as.

The standards are fine for separating concepts into things we know and things that we don't.

Defining God as unknowable, again, doesn't make it more plausible. It only 'helps' in the minds of people who want to believe, such as yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

1) Where does Sagan say this much?

"Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."
The Dragon In My Garage

You might want to actually read it.

2) What are examples of things that can be true without having knowledge of them?

2,000 years ago we had no knowledge that our bodies were made up of individual cells. It was true that our bodies were made up of cells 2,000 years ago, but we had no knowledge of it.

Wouldn't you say that believing there are things that are true without us ascertaining them/knowing them is precisely that -- a belief (faith)?

Believing something to be true in the absence of evidence is the definition of faith.

Seeing how you can't know the things...you say are true...

That is not what I said. I said something CAN BE true, not that they ARE true. Do you understand the difference?

Justify. Please.

I just told you that it is a failed epistemology, and since you claim to believe anything anyone says, you must accept the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dude, you're speculating by your own previous use of the word when you say there can be multiverses and offer no evidence along the testability standard which you just put on a pedestal.

Your claims require there the universe not come from previous universes. I am simply pointing out that you never support that claim. I showed that there is no reason to reject the hypothesis of multiverses which means that you can't make the claims you are making.

This is just falling apart like a house of cards, loudmouth.

I am not the one who has to call everything a religion or faith in order to feel better.