The "creator hypothesis"

Post Reply
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Reliant121 »

Hey, if someone came a long and found a way of explaining god in that manner then sure I'd believe in him. I sure as hell wouldn't worship him like some form of super being, but I'd acknowledge his existence.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Captain Seafort »

Tsukiyumi wrote:See where I'm going with this? :wink:
Your point is that our inability to detect objects or phenomena does not necessarily mean that said objects or phenomena do not exist. So what? If, a hundred years ago, someone had proposed the existence of Pluto, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, he'd've been laughed out of town, and rightly so. Ditto for someone who proposed micro-organisms, although that's a slightly different case as their effects (decay, certain illnesses, etc, are readily observable.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Tsukiyumi »

People did laugh, until those things were proven to exist. I'm not saying we'll ever prove God exists, only that it's been proven repeatedly that we don't understand more than the barest fraction of reality.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Captain Seafort »

Tsukiyumi wrote:People did laugh
And they were right to, given the circumstances.
it's been proven repeatedly that we don't understand more than the barest fraction of reality.
And? "We don't understand everything, ergo God exists (or might exist)"? You could use exactly the same argument for the tooth fairy.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Mikey »

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Captain Seafort wrote:So what? If, a hundred years ago, someone had proposed the existence of Pluto, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, he'd've been laughed out of town, and rightly so. Ditto for someone who proposed micro-organisms, although that's a slightly different case as their effects (decay, certain illnesses, etc, are readily observable.
Yes, he would have - but that's not the point here. The point is that undetected - and currently undetectable - phenomena are patently possible. Like Tsu, I doubt if we'll ever prove the existence of G-d, and as I've said I don't ever want to (you know, danger of being killed at a crosswalk and all. ;) ) However, that doesn't mean that I am (or anyone else is) a drooling imbecile for choosing to believe.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Captain Seafort wrote:And? "We don't understand everything, ergo God exists (or might exist)"? You could use exactly the same argument for the tooth fairy.
I'm sorry if you chose to interpret my statement that way, but nowhere in there did I even say "God exists".

I'm saying that we currently don't know one way or the other. So, in absence of evidence, some people choose to believe in God, just like a number of people "believed" that microorganisms caused sickness, even when there was no solid evidence.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote:"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I would not consider the words of such a mentally unstable individual to be a particularly convincing argument.
Yes, he would have - but that's not the point here.
It may not have been the point you or Tsu intended to make, but it's central to the argument. If a given phenomena cannot be detected either directly or through its effects, then the default assumption must be that said phenomena does not exist. If at some point this state of affairs changes, fair enough. Until then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
However, that doesn't mean that I am (or anyone else is) a drooling imbecile for choosing to believe.
The "imbecile" comment, as far as I can tell, came about as a result of your argument regarding god interacting through natural phenomena. While this might be an interesting theological debate, in the context of a scientific debate regarding the origins of life it is a claim that requires evidence like any other. I have no problem with a belief in god in an abstract sense, as that's a purely a matter of personal view, with no impact whatsoever on the world at large. As soon as you begin discussing interactive, measurable phenomena, then evidence in support of said action must be presented. In god's case the evidence in favour amounts to three quarters of bugger-all.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Captain Seafort »

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm sorry if you chose to interpret my statement that way, but nowhere in there did I even say "God exists".
Sorry, but your statement seemed to come very close to the sort of "god of the gaps" bullshit that I've encountered occasionally from creationists, and which really gets up my nose.
I'm saying that we currently don't know one way or the other. So, in absence of evidence, some people choose to believe in God, just like a number of people "believed" that microorganisms caused sickness, even when there was no solid evidence.
The difference is that one of those "beliefs" is falsifiable. The other is not.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Mikey »

Captain Seafort wrote:I would not consider the words of such a mentally unstable individual to be a particularly convincing argument.
Good. It was never intended as anything more than apt poetic quote.
Captain Seafort wrote:t may not have been the point you or Tsu intended to make, but it's central to the argument. If a given phenomena cannot be detected either directly or through its effects, then the default assumption must be that said phenomena does not exist. If at some point this state of affairs changes, fair enough. Until then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Given that you were responding to Tsu's commentary, it most definitely is not the point. To paraphrase you - appropriately - it may have been the point you were trying to introduce, but that doesn't mean you can shift gears without applying the clutch.
Captain Seafort wrote:The "imbecile" comment, as far as I can tell, came about as a result of your argument regarding god interacting through natural phenomena. While this might be an interesting theological debate, in the context of a scientific debate regarding the origins of life it is a claim that requires evidence like any other. I have no problem with a belief in god in an abstract sense, as that's a purely a matter of personal view, with no impact whatsoever on the world at large. As soon as you begin discussing interactive, measurable phenomena, then evidence in support of said action must be presented. In god's case the evidence in favour amounts to three quarters of bugger-all.
Very well, but off target. The only thing I was ever arguing for is that religious belief isn't necessarily inimical to the adoption of scientific hypotheses and theories (such as natural selection and evolution.) If you want to keep ignoring the finer points and referring back to the overarching discussion, then fine; that's what it was. Bear in mind that it was a proponent of atheism - not me - who said that everybody should believe as he does, and that people who don't are "not right in the head" simply because they don't adhere to his tenets.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Mikey wrote:I do need to ask, however: you said that you think all people should be atheists. Does that mean that you want all people to be atheists, or merely that you see your viewpoint as right and don't understand why everyone else doesn't see it as well?
I'm not that sure of the difference between those two things. I want all people to be atheists because I think my viewpoint is right.

I do recognise that it's not going to happen, though, and I do respect other's rights to their own views of reality, no matter how little I respect the views themselves.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Deepcrush wrote:And look how many times you've been caught being a hypocrite and how many times I've been warned for being "too rude". There are somethings, especially when coming from Mods and Admins, in which at least some form of respect should be shown.
The difference is, Ian didn't disrespect Mikey. He disrespected a point of view that Mikey subscribes to.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Mikey »

Actually, he referred to an entire creed - a plethora of creeds, in fact - as entirely comprising people whom he described as "not right in the head." That's a reference to the people - and me specifically, as a member of his target group - as mentally incompetent. Believe me, I know you and your brother don't agree with my beliefs in this arena. Conversely, I obviously don't agree with yours. That's fine, and you can disrespect my viewpoint all you want - even though a gentleman would rather make reference to disagreeing with it instead of disrespecting it. That's not what Ian did. What Ian did was, in fact, exactly equivalent to saying "Jews and Christians and Shintoists and Muslims and Wiccans and Shingon practitioners etc. ad nauseum are stupid because they are Jews and Christians and Muslims and Shintoists and Wiccans and Shingon practitioners etc. ad nauseum.

That's really very little different from any other biased comment which you and your brother had so vehemently decried previously on this board. Now, I'm not trying to dump on you, GK - I can't and won't hold you responsible for anything that came from someone else's mouth, be it your brother's or not. However, Ian is your co-administrator here; and I'd like to know right out if:
a) You guys would like me to recommend a replacement for myself, based or not on selecting someone from the same GMT -5 time zone; or,
b) You guys would like me to completely remove myself from the forum membership because I'm not an atheist, and am therefore cognitively retarded.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Mikey wrote:Actually, he referred to an entire creed - a plethora of creeds, in fact - as entirely comprising people whom he described as "not right in the head." That's a reference to the people - and me specifically, as a member of his target group - as mentally incompetent.
Actually he didn't.
That's really very little different from any other biased comment which you and your brother had so vehemently decried previously on this board. Now, I'm not trying to dump on you, GK - I can't and won't hold you responsible for anything that came from someone else's mouth, be it your brother's or not. However, Ian is your co-administrator here; and I'd like to know right out if:
a) You guys would like me to recommend a replacement for myself, based or not on selecting someone from the same GMT -5 time zone; or,
b) You guys would like me to completely remove myself from the forum membership because I'm not an atheist, and am therefore cognitively retarded.
No on both counts.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6155
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by IanKennedy »

First, I'm going to be brief at the moment as I'm in work. I was away this weekend and forgot about this and haven't had the chance to get back to it. Just a few points:

1) Right minded does not mean 'mentally incompetent', it's more of 'thinking or believing what is right; having correct views' (at least that's what I mean by it and what a few on-line dictionaries I checked have said it was). If you feel offended by this then I apologise, it was not meant as an insult.

2) I stand by my statement so to paraphrase 'I cannot understand how any person could believe in god', the concept simply does not stand up to critical review. I truly cannot find a difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god.

3) Faith is a fudge word invented by churches as a way for people to believe in something that they would otherwise find ridiculous. It is in effect a way of saying 'I know that this makes no sense but I'm going to believe it anyway, because the normal rules of logic and argument don't apply here'.
email, ergo spam
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The "creator hypothesis"

Post by Mikey »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Actually he didn't.
Well, maybe he didn't... but he did. More on this in a moment.
GrahamKennedy wrote:No on both counts.
Very well. Glad to hear it.
IanKennedy wrote:1) Right minded does not mean 'mentally incompetent', it's more of 'thinking or believing what is right; having correct views' (at least that's what I mean by it and what a few on-line dictionaries I checked have said it was). If you feel offended by this then I apologise, it was not meant as an insult.
I have never lived in any part of the UK, and the only familiarity I have with your parlance is what I've garnered from this board, Doctor Who, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, 'Allo 'Allo, and Primeval. In the U.S. - along the Boston-Washington, D.C. metro corridor, at any rate - "not right in the head" refers to mental or emotional incapacity. "Right-minded" would have been a much easier phrase to read if that was your intent.
IanKennedy wrote:2) I stand by my statement so to paraphrase 'I cannot understand how any person could believe in god', the concept simply does not stand up to critical review. I truly cannot find a difference between Santa, the Easter bunny and the concept of god.
That part is fine. Like I said, I already know that you're an atheist, which pretty much necessitates an inability or unwillingness to believe in supernatural divinity. To repeat - if you could understand it, then you probably wouldn't be an atheist.
IanKennedy wrote:3) Faith is a fudge word invented by churches as a way for people to believe in something that they would otherwise find ridiculous. It is in effect a way of saying 'I know that this makes no sense but I'm going to believe it anyway, because the normal rules of logic and argument don't apply here'.
I actually don't have a problem with this, save for the connotations of "fudge" and "ridiculous." I've said as much, though in a far less derogatory way. Faith and proof are opposed, and people of faith don't need - or more importantly, desire - proof. However, it is not my wish to try to convince anyone to adopt any viewpoint, even my own. Proselytizing is definitely not an aspect of my faith. At this point, my only concern is to try to defend against negative language directed toward people because they don't happen to follow someone else's ideals.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Post Reply