Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you take the claim that, "the universe alone is all that exists," on faith? <--Yes or no.
I expect any atheist who would make such a claim to carry that burden too. There ain't many that would make such a claim though. That type of atheist is a rarity.If its not a faith-based belief, then I expect atheists to shoulder their burden of persuasion. The burden they insist upon when interrogating theists.
I expect any atheist who would make such a claim to carry that burden too. There ain't many that would make such a claim though. That type of atheist is a rarity.
According to most atheists.
Prove it. That's a positive claim, no weaseling out. It ain't according to the atheist you cited in your thread, lol.
It does not. Most atheists do not make the claim "The universe alone is all that exists". And you're saying that because they don't make that claim, they do claim there's a rule about proving negatives? Nonsense. Complete nonsense.^ Oh? lol. Thanks for proving this for me:
It does not. Most atheists do not make the claim "The universe alone is all that exists".
And you're saying that because they don't make that claim, they do claim there's a rule about proving negatives? Nonsense. Complete nonsense.
I know that you really, really, really want "I don't believe there is" to be the same thing as "I believe there is no" but you're just going to have to accept that it ain't. And insisting that it is, is nothing but a really weak, overused strawman.
I tend to do that manually like this (with the orientation of the square brackets switched) : ]quote=Mark Quayle 61[ quoted text ]/quote[Mark Quayle 61 said:Forgive me for my ignorance as to how to put quotes within quotes like you guys do so well. Bear with me.
[14] So you claim, but can you prove that ? I suggest you ponder what assumptions you are implicitely making.[1] I notice you were careful not to say, "A thing creating itself is not illogical." You only ask how my points prove it! I guess I need to expand a bit, since you asked, though you implied you would not ask since they were off topic. Often I say something that seems to me to bring obvious implications with it, that are somehow not obvious to others. "A thing cannot cause itself to exist" because it would first have to exist to be able to cause anything.[14] It also "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" because beginning necessarily implies causation, if nothing else, the principle by which it began --therefore, not spontaneity.[15]
[16] If all I have to do with concepts is invent a name for them without sharing and probably not even knowing what I am talking about, as Christians often do, then sure, I can think of other options.Mark Quayle 61 said:[2] "A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused." Perhaps I should put the logical link in there, that "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" rules out Spontaneity of existence, period, by definition of the word 'spontaneous'. It is not a static word. So, other than spontaneity, do you have another option besides 'caused to exist' and 'self-existent'?
You shared several conclusions in that category without presenting the rest of their arguments and that is in my experience how Christians typically reach such conclusions. It could be that you are an exception.Mark Quayle 61 said:You say:
You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.
That is not what I argue, not how I reason. I wonder how it appeared to you that way.
[17] I am confident it is possible to define chance, randomness and causing such that your claim is true.Mark Quayle 61 said:[3] I thought I had just explained.Chance or randomness causing anything, is self-contradictory.[17] But furthermore, as has been said by others, 'Chance is just a placeholder for "I don't know".'
What does that mean ?Mark Quayle 61 said:So you slide out from under my point.Amoranemix 60 said:[6] There atheists who disbelieve there is any god and atheists who disbelieve in specific gods.
No.Mark Quayle 61 said:Truth doesn't have any relationship to claims or feelings. So what. Is that your defense of infinite regression?Amoranemix 60 said:Reality does not care about your aversions.
If you based your beliefs on reason and evidence, you could gloat about winning arguments i.s.o. being reduced to gloating about having caused atheists difficulty. I understand though that abandoning God-belief is too steep a price.Mark Quayle 61 said:You are talking with Paulo here, but I can't help but jump in. He and I were talking not long ago about this habit atheists have, that often when they see their defense eroding, they quickly, lest they lose the debate, revert to something like, "Well, even if you are right about Omnipotence (or First Cause)(or even First Cause With Intent) you still have to prove that it is the Christian God!" Like, "AHA! Got you on THAT one!"Amoranemix 60 said:If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open. Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.
I intepret your follow-up as an attempt to prove your claim.Here, you are implicitly claiming. . .Amoranemix 60 said:[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Your argument appears to be the following :Paulomycin 62 said:. . .a secular reality without evidence. Since you are an atheist, and since you are unwilling to honestly suspend your atheism for any length of time, then that is your implicit claim.Amoranemix 60 to Mark Quayle said:Reality does not care about your aversions.
I prefer to call it what it is.Paulomycin 62 said:Call it a gamble that I end up winning 99% of the time, because I'm leveraging a perceived forced incredulity. I'm predicting that it will repeat itself.Amoranemix 60 said:Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
So we have your claim that you have never been objectively refuted and your claim that ontological naturalism is objectively refuted. If the latter is true, then I don't believe in it and I suspect few skeptics do.Paulomycin 62 said:It is objectively self-refuting. To appeal to naturalistic means to justify naturalism is arguing in a circle. For that reason (but not that reason alone), ontological naturalism is an extremely weak position.Amoranemix 60 said:Has ontological naturalism ever been objectively refuted ?
[18] The people 'from my side' fail to to suggest that in any specified detail for various reasons, but I doubt the one you are claiming is a popular one. Personally, I don't believe matter behaves that way.Paulomycin 62 said:Amoranemix 60 said:I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that matter has continuously multiplied on and on for eternity past.
Of course no one on your side is going to suggest any of this in any specified detail, because the fallacy of vagueness is an excellent tool for epistemic cover.[18] Atheists generally hate complete transparency.[19] Once all the specific options are considered in detail, the results are unavoidable.
[20] First, that is the original formulation of William of Ockham. You seem to only rely on it because it supports your position. However, it fails to be good predictor of the real world when applied literally. There are many cases where there is likely more than one of something in absense of necessity that there be more than one.Paulomycin 62 said:The actual definition of Occam's razor is, "entities should not be multiplied without necessity."[20] In this case, it refers to materialist entities that are multiplied without necessity to an infinite regress. It's a complete trainwreck of logic that ultimately answers nothing (because infinity).[21]Amoranemix 60 said:How so ? Occam's razor doesn't claim that there cannot be more than one of something. If it did, skeptics would better reject it.
[22] You are mistaken. What you have presented is not proof, but a bad argument, as I have explained. However, there might be confusion about the discussed argument. What argument are you claiming is proof ?Paulomycin 62 said:First, it's not even a scientific hypothesis at all. It's a logical proof.[22] You should know the difference. Logical proofs are absolute. Second, even scientific hypotheses cannot be irrational proposals in and of themselves. Logical soundness should be the 1st test that a hypothesis is even coherently communicable. Infinite causal loops (a.) or an eternal finite materialism (b.) are never rational proposals.The first is an infinite regress (an indirect contradiction) and the second is a brute contradiction that finite matter is eternal.[23]Amoranemix 60 said:You are assuming that your favourite hypotheses must be true because that would render obsolete the other hypothesis. That reasoning is however fallacious. It could otherwise also be used to render your favourite hypothesis obsolete. The simplest hypothesis that explains the evidence is to be preferred and complexity is not solely determined by the number of instances a hypothesis contains.
No, that is not the reason. Given how you belittle others for their alleged lack of reasoning abilities, I find it hard to believe that you would doubt what I was trying to convey, so I'll assume you misunderstood.Paulomycin 62 said:Because you magically assert that is the case, rather than demonstrate specifically how my facts are "undersupported."Amoranemix 60 said:Claims of possibility (speculation) require less evidence than claims of fact. The vaguer a claim, the less evidence it requires. If that speculation already requires evidence, then most of your unevidenced claims of fact are woefully undersupported.
[a] Dude. Don't be a grammar nazi. I was not trying to trick you. I agree that is a definition i.s.a. premise.Paulomycin 62 said:[a]No. The definition is not a premise. Definitions are necessary before arguments even commence. Otherwise, you people will attempt to trip me up on "which god" and the ambiguity of god(s). I propose to prove an omnipotent being, then the proof follows the claim.Amoranemix 60 said:If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :
P1. Paulomycin's god is by definition omnipotent.[a]
P2. An omnipotent being is necessary to explain the world.[b ]
C. Therefore Paulomycin's god exists.
I suspect omniscience is included in your definition of omnipotence.
Further you attempt to demonstrate P1.
[b ] You're omitting either the causal argument I posted, or the modus ponens I posted after that.
You are mistaken. Regardless of whether God is subordinate to some external standard of morality or not, his moral standard can epistemically be any moral standard.Paulomycin 62 said:If "god" is subordinate to a higher standard of morality, then that god is not omnipotent. Therefore, strawman.Amoranemix 60 said:If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open.
[24] You are correct. Atheists have so far been unable to demonstrate the assumed religious baggage attached to God.Paulomycin 62 said:Don't get ahead of yourself. Once an omnipotent being is proven, then atheism is falsified. Omnipotence automatically infers the "potential" of both omniscience as well as omnipresence. Furthermore, it infers moral non-contingency.Amoranemix 60 said:Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.
The rest becomes a debate over assumed "religious baggage," that atheists have since failed to demonstrate.[24] Insistent assertions and gainsaying are never equal to a real argument. It only makes atheists the entitled Karens of the universe.
[25] Stephen Hawking saying something allegedly irrational did not prevent you from using him as an authority.Paulomycin 62 said:Which is irrational.[25]Amoranemix 60 said:“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – Stephen Hawking
1.) "create itself" is a self-refuting argument.[26] In-order for anything to create itself, it must be its own creator, which means that it would have to exist before it was, which means it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.[27] That violates the most fundamental law of reason—the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, the concept of self-creation is manifestly absurd, contradictory, and irrational. To hold to such a view is bad science and equally bad philosophy and theology, because both philosophy and science rest upon the ironclad laws of reason. Theology should too. Otherwise, I'd still be an atheist myself.
[a] No, that is not the reason. I don't buy them because they look fallacious.Paulomycin 62 said:[a] Because your knee-jerk incredulity is performing exactly as I predicted.Amoranemix 60 said:Obviously I don't buy your alleged proofs,[a] but criticizing them here would probably lead to too long an off topic discussion. If you post one in its own thread I may find time to challenge it there.[b ]
[b ] Or, I can simply assume you're either unable to rationally criticize them, or incapable. Regardless, my proofs remain unrefuted. So no worries.
Strange. You are committing an onus probandi fallacy.Paulomycin 62 said:Strange, you're not refuting the main point, which leaves the necessity of "God" wide open.Amoranemix 60 said:Strange. There is no mention of God in those articles about the beginning of the universe.
Maybe he is just honest.Paulomycin 71 said:I was born prickly. That's not the point. The point is that you've just straight-up admitted that your side is a (leap of) faith claim.durangodawood said:Youre kind of prickly about all this?
You doing ok?
Nope.Yes. It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.
Nope.^ Words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.
You don't need me to explain it to you too. You've had it explained, you just refuse to accept it.But since you can't actually explain the difference, you'll just insist you did anyway, when you can't even cough up a direct verbatum quote of yours from the past.
Yes. It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.
Nope.
No, I am. He thinks that because I say, "I do not believe there is a god" that I must also be saying "I believe there is no god". It isn't a matter of disputed definitions, it's a matter of what he thinks is implied by a lack of belief.Moral Orel, you're not an atheist by Paulomycin's definition.
I think there may be other universes out there. We are certainly causally disconnected from other parts of the universe so why not?Your feelings?
Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?
Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?
Something else?
Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?
No, I am. He thinks that because I say, "I do not believe there is a god" that I must also be saying "I believe there is no god". It isn't a matter of disputed definitions, it's a matter of what he thinks is implied by a lack of belief.
Your argument appears to be the following :
P1. Amoranemix claims : “Reality does not care about Mark Quayle's aversions”
P2. Amoranemix is unwilling to honestly suspend his atheism for any length of time.
P3. Therefore, Amoranemix claims a secular reality without evidence.
C. Therefore, Amoranemix presupposes a secular reality.
Is that indeed your argument ?
It is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
I prefer to call it what it is.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.
So we have your claim that you have never been objectively refuted and your claim that ontological naturalism is objectively refuted. If the latter is true, then I don't believe in it and I suspect few skeptics do.
[18] The people 'from my side' fail to to suggest that in any specified detail for various reasons, but I doubt the one you are claiming is a popular one. Personally, I don't believe matter behaves that way.
[19] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Anyway, since no one claimed matter to behave that way, for whatever reason, your rebuttal was a straw man fallacy.
Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily. I see no need for a supernatural deity. If one believes that some kind of god always existed, why is it so implausible that matter/energy and the fundamental forces have always existed? I can’t rule out the possibility that there could be an as yet unidentified natural force that enables (or maybe acts as a substratum) for matter/energy and the other fundamental forces. But why should I believe that it’s a personal entity that has any awareness of, interest in, or purpose for the material universe, or plays any role in how it operates? To me, the idea of an immanent personal god (or gods) is a product of the human imagination. And is one of good Friar William of Ockham’s unnecessary entities.
[20] First, that is the original formulation of William of Ockham. You seem to only rely on it because it supports your position.
However, it fails to be good predictor of the real world when applied literally.
[21] No, it is not. It is a hypothesis.
[22] You are mistaken. What you have presented is not proof, but a bad argument, as I have explained. However, there might be confusion about the discussed argument. What argument are you claiming is proof ?
[23] These seem to be the premises you use to try prove conclusions (a.) and (b.). What is an indirekt contradiction and how is it supposed to demonstrate that infinite causal loops are never a rational proposal ? I don't know what eternal finite materialism is, so I won't bother you with a proof challenge for that.
I'll compare two example claims to illustrate what I meant :
“A small object may be orbiting the moon” is a vague claim of possibility.
“A small, man-made object is orbiting the moon” is a less vague claim of fact.
The second claim requires more support to make a point or be as likely true as the first.
You made unevidenced claims of fact that are more specific than jayem's claim of possibility of post 56 that you criticized in post 57.
[a] Dude. Don't be a grammar nazi. I was not trying to trick you. I agree that is a definition i.s.a. premise.
[b ] I think I quoted everything from post 60 regarding that argument.
You are mistaken. Regardless of whether God is subordinate to some external standard of morality or not, his moral standard can epistemically be any moral standard.
[24] You are correct. Atheists have so far been unable to demonstrate the assumed religious baggage attached to God.
So, even if you were able to prove the existence of an omnipotent being, it would only be a small step towards proving the existence of the Christian god.
[25] Stephen Hawking saying something allegedly irrational did not prevent you from using him as an authority.
[26] You are mistaken. That is not an argument, but a claim.
So is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to decide what 'creating itself' means.
That does not follow. You are using the same fallacious kind of reasoning Mark Quayle denied using in post 61 : You don't understand how something could be, it would suit your faith that it could not be, thus it must be impossible.
You are basically accusing the proponents of the no boundary proposal to commit a basic reasoning error, which is implausible.
[a] No, that is not the reason. I don't buy them because they look fallacious.
[b ] 1) You have not presented your alleged proofs, but merely linked to them.
2) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that arguments require refutation to be rendered moot, while challenging them suffices.
3) Even an unchalleged argument may be fallacious and thus not constitute evidence for its conclusion.
4) That your alleged proofs remain unrefuted is merely a bald assertion of yours.
5) Please tune down your goading. It is annoying when threads I am discussing in are closed.
Strange. You are committing an onus probandi fallacy.
Maybe he is just honest.
You guys are just going in circles on this. You're just arguing semantics on the meaning of "atheism"
Moral Orel, you're not an atheist by Paulomycin's definition. Paulomycin, you really should accept the idea that other people have different definitions of the word, so you should make your personal definition clear at the start. Also, beware of using your definition to make a straw man against any non-religious people. Not that you do.
I think there may be other universes out there. We are certainly causally disconnected from other parts of the universe so why not?
Non sequitur.
Nope.
I'm thinking of a number. Tell me what you believe it is.
Yeah, I'm very aware of this particular issue. I've been hoping he'd address it.
I don't.It's literally the OP that I created! Answer the question. You don't believe the universe is all that exists?
Oh, no.Oh, yes.
I'm thinking of a number. Tell me what you believe it is.
So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:
1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.
So tired of this garbage.
I don't.
Oh, no.
So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?
Yes.Do you believe your own claim of unbelief?
It's impossible to make a claim without stating it.Still words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.
So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?
You don't know if there is a number that you believe I am thinking of? You don't know your own beliefs?My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:
1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.
The statement "I don't know" is not a statement of belief in either direction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?