Logical? Deism.

[thaiboxerken]

What's logical about Logical Deism? It makes absolutely no sense that there is any logic involved with belief in a god.

 

[Guest]

What's logical about Logical Deism? It makes absolutely no sense that there is any logic involved with belief in a god.

Neither is there any logic involved with active disbelief in a God.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

The only logical position is agnosticism (although it does depend on your definition of God).

 

[whitefork]

You may glean some concept of the logic involved by perusing these threads:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9247

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9364

 

[Guest]

Let me put it another way :

The fact that you keep starting threads about Franko, specially ones which can be shot down as easily as this one can be, just indicates that Franko is getting to you, which is exactly what he wants.

 

[Guest]

Nope, I agree with TBK here. Belief in a god is not a position arrived at through the use of logic. Please explain to me how this thread is shot down easily? Using logic, of course?

 

[Guest]

Nope, I agree with TBK here. Belief in a god is not a position arrived at through the use of logic. Please explain to me how this thread is shot down easily? Using logic, of course?

OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.

edited....

I just wish people here would stop obsessing over Franko. He has some good points which atheists/materialists refuse to acknowledge, and he mixes them up with double-talk and contradictions. The arguments just go round and round and round in circles.

 

[Guest]

I would say that since there is no evidence of god, one can logically conclude that such a thing does not exist, despite the assertions of millions upon millions of people.

I see your point about Franko... although there is a part of me that likes his style. Maybe that's not logical however.

BTW... love your username.

 

[Guest]

I would say that since there is no evidence of god, one can logically conclude that such a thing does not exist, despite the assertions of millions upon millions of people.

Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence. Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Do you think agnosticism is illogical?

 

[Darat]

OK...maybe shot down is the wrong term. The point is that atheism is no more logical than theism/deism is. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. There is no direct evidence of God except for the existence of a Universe whose ultimate origin is itself inexplicable. Therefore agnosticism (or pantheism) is the only truly logical position to take.

...snip....

Depends on your definition of "God" doesn't it? You are not saying that you agnostic about a definition of a say Zeus are you i.e. "God lives on the top of Mount Olympus"? That is a falsifiable definition and as far as this definition of God goes I am atheistic.

By the way aren't you being inconsistent here? You seem to have decided, with no evidence, that the origin of the universe is inexplicable. Surely since you believe that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” you should be "agnostic" about whether the universe’s ultimate origin is explicable or not?

 

[Guest]

Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Well, now, you're asking a totally different question here... and atheism does not posit any such thing. I'm tempted to say "strawman".

As for agnosticism... heh. I consider myself an atheist with agnostic leanings. I don't think there is any good reason to conclude there is a god or gods. Therefore, I do not throw the weight of my belief to the concept, nice as it is. atheism) But who really knows? agnosticism)

 

[Darat]

...snip....

engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence.

...snip...

What do you think this universe was engineered for?

I know you can't think it was engineered for life since 99.999999999999 to the 99nth of the total volume of the universe not conducive to life and in fact is out and out hostile to life.

(I'm using a definition of life here that covers the self replicating, self organising creatures on the Earth such as humans and worms.)

 

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny You are in Love with me - aren't you?

At very least you seem obsessed.

So why don't you explain to us how you came to the conclusion that when you flip a coin it ALWAYS lands "TAILS" up since there is no evidence that it will land "HEADS" up?

 

[Guest]

Darat :

By the way aren't you being inconsistent here? You seem to have decided, with no evidence, that the origin of the universe is inexplicable. Surely since you believe that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” you should be "agnostic" about whether the universe’s ultimate origin is explicable or not?

Well, I would point out that I am the sole person on this forum who has ever actually attempted to explain the the origin of the Universe from first principles, and trying to get people to accept that explanation was like pulling teeth, because it depends on things like self-existing mathematics, the objective existence of Infinity and the primacy of consciousness. But unless you are willing to accept things like these then answering the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

I sympathise with Franko. I just wish he would iron out the contradictions in his stated position. I can guess at some of his reasons for being unclear though.

 

[Guest]

What do you think this universe was engineered for?

I said it was arguable that it appears engineered for the existence of life. However, I have gone to great lengths to provide a rebuttal to the argument from cosmic design - indeed the whole of my metaphysics was provoked by an attempt to provide a rebuttal, and yet it has been fiercely contested by the atheists here because they don't like the implications. They don't like the argument from cosmic design. They don't like the rebuttal either.

The atheist/materialist position is that this is the only Universe and there's nothing special about life.

Just seven numbers.......

 

[Soubrette]

Darat :
......

"how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

........

Geoff, to go totally offtopic - Yahzi did a fine scientific and humorous (more importantly to me) explanation as to how something can come out of nothing. (He didn't say where the something had come from though - or at least what the mechanism was for them popping into existence) but what are your thoughts?

I've quoted it in banter a few days ago - but I'll requote here

Originally posted by Yahzi - some time ago
Randfan:
Since nobody answered your question, I will try.

There is a number called the Planck constant. Distances or times shorter than this cannot be measured.

Imagine a pair of particles (one positive and one negative) suddenly springing into being from nothing, and then recombining, anhilating themselves and leaving nothing behind. If they do this in less time than the Planck limit, then no one could have possibly noticed their existance. Hence, they might be doing it all the time.

(The astute reader will ask - what about the energy released when the particles combine? The answer is, that energy pays back the universe for the energy borrowed to create the particles in the first place. Lucky for us the two energies are exactly equal, otherwise Bad Things would happen.)

Now lets turn to black holes. Once something gets too close to a black hole (past the event horizion), it falls in. Suppose that one of these ephemeral particle pairs suddenly appears really close to a black hole - and one of the particles falls in!

Now his partner is like, wtf? He can't recombine and disapear, so he is stuck: he stays here, after the Planck limit expires, and now the poor bastich is Real. Stuck in the real world.

So now you have matter appearing from nothing at all. Wait a second, you ask: who pays back the universe for the energy borrowed to make that real particle? Hawking claims it's the black hole, and thus black holes slowly evaporate. Sort of like cosmic recycling.


In the original big bang, when the first two particles popped into being from nothing, there was no space-time. So the two particles occupied an infintely small space. Which means infinite pressure (try squeezing something into nothing!) And infinite pressure means a humonguous explosion. And after that, it was way too late for the little guys to get together again.

Nowdays there is some space and time, so the temporary particles don't have infinite pressure.

But just like the twin gods of Zorastorism, sooner or later those two primal particles will find each other, recombine, and the whole universe will then snuff out instantly. Only for it all to happen again later (well later is hard to define since without a universe there is no time.)

[Ok, I made the last paragraph up. But the rest is real physics.]

Sou

 

[Franko]

I sympathise with Franko. I just wish he would iron out the contradictions in his stated position. I can guess at some of his reasons for being unclear though.

What contradiction -- specifically?

 

[Darat]

Darat :



Well, I would point out that I am the sole person on this forum who has ever actually attempted to explain the the origin of the Universe from first principles, and trying to get people to accept that explanation was like pulling teeth, because it depends on things like self-existing mathematics, the objective existence of Infinity and the primacy of consciousness.

I disagree - other posters (an example is Christian) believe that they have explained the universe from "first principles" the only difference being that they aren’t the same “first principles” as yours.

But unless you are willing to accept things like these then answering the question "how does something come from nothing" is absolutely impossible. Why? If you have NOTHING AT ALL, the how does anything follow it? Nothing can come from Nothing. And yet clearly something exists. This is a bit of a problem isn't it?

...snip....

Only if you can't live with the answer "I don't know". And this is what I was trying to pointing out when I said you were being inconsistent.

How do you know that something coming from nothing is impossible? What is your evidence? And remember it was you who just said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It appears that you have decided on an answer based on the opposite of what you said was your position i.e. you are saying "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" on the matter of something coming from nothing - (whilst I remain "agnostic" on this matter).

 

[Ignatius]

Good to see you back, UcE. I hope you are doing well.

Then you're making the same error that TBK is accusing Franko of. We live in a Universe that is arguably fine-tuned for the existence of life. We may have no direct objective evidence of the existence of God/Gods but neither do we have any objective explanation as to how this engineered-looking cosmos popped into existence.

I would say that the Universe is not fine-tuned for life. You'd think you would find life in more than .00000000000001% of it if it were.

I think that being agnostic as far as belief in how the universe started is reasonable. We do not know.

Is positing a Creator-intelligence really any more illogical than positing that it just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation?

Yes! Is positing that a Creator just popped into existence out of nothing with no explanation to create the universe any more logical? The same problem exists for the beginning of god as the beginning of the universe.

If I posit that the Universe was not created by god and did not just pop into existence but came to be by some other specific means, I am obligated to provide some proof for my position. It would be illogical of you to believe my idea without evidence. Same thing applies when I consider the god hypothesis.

I understand where you are coming from with the agnosticism stance (I think), but it seems to me that there is a difference between agnosticism (I don't know) and the atheist position (I don't buy that particular argument because you offer no proof).

Anyway, I mostly just stopped in to say "Howdy".

Howdy!

 

[scribble]

I said it was arguable that it appears engineered for the existence of life. However, I have gone to great lengths to provide a rebuttal to the argument from cosmic design - indeed the whole of my metaphysics was provoked by an attempt to provide a rebuttal, and yet it has been fiercely contested by the atheists here because they don't like the implications. They don't like the argument from cosmic design. They don't like the rebuttal either.

As one of the Atheists you are speaking of, let me assure you the reason your argument is rejected isn't because we don't "like" it or it's implications.

It's because it's utter nonsense spouted from a loony.

Did you ever answer my question in the other thread about what conclusions you eventually came to regarding that mysterious document that appeared spontaneously on your computer, with answers to your Big Questions in it, and you wouldn't share it with us because of copyright concerns?

(Wow, that's one gnarly sentence.)

You did claim this, repeatedly. Do you still believe that a document spontaneously appeared on your computer? With answers in it? If so, how do you take full credit for developing your philosophy?

If not, how do you explain your behaviour?

-Chris

 

[Franko]

How do you know that something coming from nothing is impossible?

What is nothing exactly?

Don't you always have T i m e?

Time is something ... isn't it?