From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, I'm a combo of both.

I'm not a fan of eugenics, but wouldn't you want everyone to eventually be twins? That way if any special code was found, you would have both a male and female counterpart to get parts for creating an evolved species.

"God has a plan."

a reply to: imjack

I don't think one would want that. Genetic diversity is important for long term species survival. With less genetic diversity there would be less chance of survival, should something change drastically with earth's environment. Fitness is often temporary, so the whole eugenics / social darwinism thing is bunk. It's not about superiority over others, it's about being good enough to survive. This is why when liars like Ben Stein claim Darwin inspired the holocaust, it is absurd.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

When any and all doubts about what life is and isn't as reality? It isn't. That's why Buddhas are said to be immovable...

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Right. I see what you're saying

What is the meaning of " Having faith in my/yourself" or "Believing in my/yourself"?

Would you consider these delusional ?

i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
That is not universally true. it only works is the pressure if the water is at 14.7 pounds/square inch. Lower the pressure and it boils at a lower temp. Higher pressures = higher boiling point/s (i'm just being pedantic, though).

Yes, I knew somebody was going to bring up some silly technicality like that which is why I put "Under normal conditions" at the beginning. Philosophy guys love to nitpick things like that, while at the same time relying on vague terminology and interpretation of assumptions to make their arguments. I could have made that point 2 paragraphs long to account for every possible exception, but don't see a need for it in the context. The point was about arguments for god and how they DO NOT use empirical data to form their conclusions. Any response to my actual point? Do you have an empirical argument you'd like to present for god that doesn't rely on defining things that can't really be defined or assumptions?

Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens, probably the most major proponents of atheism in this century, have ALL used this argument. For instance, In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes that "scientific theories are superior to a God hypothesis". Victor Stenger wrote books such as God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Daniel Dennet co-authored the book Science and Religion where he directly suggests that atheism is valid and theism isn't, on the basis of science. Sam Harris is famous for his assertion that science should supplant religion in the moral arena and that religion should be abolished, in books such as The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Hitchens has stated his belief, several times, that belief in a 'heaven' is the basis of all conflicts and that "there is no scientific evidence for heaven".

You have to understand that many of those books are written in response to the numerous creationist attacks on science (mostly evolution). This is why folks defend science and bring it up in these arguments. Yes, scientific theories are FAR superior to a god hypothesis (god is not even a hypothesis, as it's not testable). That's a basic fact, but that does not mean that science disproves god or proves atheism. You really have to give me their arguments in context to make the case that they are claiming atheism itself is backed by science. It's different to say that science holds more weight than guesswork, than to say it proves god doesn't exist.

My point was that scientific method cannot prove the existence of God. As I've said before, it is the wrong tool.

Hitchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" can be applied to atheism, too.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Ive never heard of the term before. It seems like agnosticism lite.

Now we have igtheism, atheism and agnosticism as words to describe someone who doesn't believe in a specific doctrine.

I would prefer if people just said "I'm an atheist but I could be wrong".

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm
Ive never heard of the term before. It seems like agnosticism lite.

Now we have igtheism, atheism and agnosticism as words to describe someone who doesn't believe in a specific doctrine.

I would prefer if people just said "I'm an atheist but I could be wrong".

atheism says that there is no god. full stop.

agnosticism says we cannot know if there is or isnt a god. full stop.

igtheism says that the question is meaningless, because the term "god" is poorly defined. clarify search parameters before resuming inquiry.

"Im an atheist but i could be wrong" is too simple to encompass the process that lead to such a glib summary. you could condense the entire bible or koran into "Im a christian/muslim but i could be wrong". its not technically incorrect but it feels a little shallow.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Fair enough, i thought agnosticism allows for the possibiity of knowledge just that it doesn't exist now.
Regarding Igtheism, your probably right with that too.

Either way, as long as they all accept our ignorance on the topic that's most important thing I guess.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

Sorry, life & stuff. I'm sure you know the drill.

The etymology of ignosticism is, firstly, a bastardized mix of Latin & Greek - a semantic impurity.



The Latin "ig" means, simply, 'not'. The Greek "gnosis" means 'to know'. The Latin "ism" refers to a; 'system, doctrine or practice'. So, my take on the definition of the word would be 'the system of not knowing' (which is different to the definition you supplied in the link, in a previous post). Ignosticism could be considered to be etymologically similar to agnosticism.

Similarly, igtheism is; 'the system of no god/s' (another mangling of roots as "theos" is Greek for 'god'!) and is very similar to atheism in an etymological sense.

However, igtheism and ignosticism have been defined as implying that athesim, theism and agnosticism all hang their definitions upon an assumed understanding of what "god" might be. Since there is no robust agreed definition of 'god', it is pointless to try and argue any case dependent upon the definition of 'god'. One must first define 'god' fully, if one cannot, then igtheism and/or ignosticism must be the default position.

However, to counter that, one might suggest that we DO have unique definitions that can only be applied to God or gods and therefore the 'ig' arguments are semantic pedantries.

So, it's a free-for-all. Pick your favourite flavour and run with that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i was interested to see chr0nauts take on ignosticism/igtheism but it would seem he has gotten bored and wandered off.

Sorry, life & stuff. I'm sure you know the drill.

The etymology of ignosticism is, firstly, a bastardized mix of Latin & Greek - a semantic impurity.

The Latin "ig" means, simply, 'not'. The Greek "gnosis" means 'to know'. The Latin "ism" refers to a; 'system, doctrine or practice'. So, my take on the definition of the word would be 'the system of not knowing' (which is different to the definition you supplied in the link, in a previous post). Ignosticism could be considered to be etymologically similar to agnosticism.

Similarly, igtheism is; 'the system of no god/s' (another mangling of roots as "theos" is Greek for 'god'!) and is very similar to atheism in an etymological sense.

However, igtheism and ignosticism have been defined as implying that athesim, theism and agnosticism all hang their definitions upon an assumed understanding of what "god" might be. Since there is no robust agreed definition of 'god', it is pointless to try and argue any case dependent upon the definition of 'god'. One must first define 'god' fully, if one cannot, then igtheism and/or ignosticism must be the default position.

However, to counter that, one might suggest that we DO have unique definitions that can only be applied to God or gods and therefore the 'ig' arguments are semantic pedantries.

So, it's a free-for-all. Pick your favourite flavour and run with that.

Of course there are protocols for defining things. Among these is the substantiation of whatever is being defined. In other words falsifiable data from repeatable experiments, that is if you expect the definition to have any practical application. Anyone suggesting that igtheism as an argument is pedantic clearly doesn't appreciate the importance of defining something before you attempt to confirm its existence. There are some doors you don't want to knock on without knowing what's behind them.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Depends on what you mean by a self and how that self carries... a closed self or closed mind closes to the source and can go into an extreme thinking itself the source in all things instead of an open mind or open source that sees nothing else as different from a self existing which can also be an extreme.

The middle of the two? Balance. energy is form and form is energy form and formlessness... united as one and inseparable except through duality caused by attachment... of self and other, self not oneself... etc etc.

Equanimity is the balance between form and formlessness, self and other.

originally posted by: chr0naut
My point was that scientific method cannot prove the existence of God. As I've said before, it is the wrong tool.

It cannot prove the existence of god because there is no evidence to test. If there was, then the scientific method could indeed attempt to prove it. It's not the wrong tool, it's a problem with having no observations to start with or use to make testable predictions. What do you consider to be a better tool than science?

Hitchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" can be applied to atheism, too.

That statement is contradictory if you apply it to atheism. Atheism is simply lack of one belief. God is asserted without evidence, therefor it makes sense to dismiss god without evidence. Atheists aren't actually asserting any claims, they just reject other people's claims. Atheism is just the default position as a result. Same thing with fairies. You might as well apply that statement above to non belief in fairies as well, or to anything else that the statement rejects by following it.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
My point was that scientific method cannot prove the existence of God. As I've said before, it is the wrong tool.

It cannot prove the existence of god because there is no evidence to test. If there was, then the scientific method could indeed attempt to prove it. It's not the wrong tool, it's a problem with having no observations to start with or use to make testable predictions. What do you consider to be a better tool than science?

Hitchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" can be applied to atheism, too.

That statement is contradictory if you apply it to atheism. Atheism is simply lack of one belief. God is asserted without evidence, therefor it makes sense to dismiss god without evidence. Atheists aren't actually asserting any claims, they just reject other people's claims. Atheism is just the default position as a result. Same thing with fairies. You might as well apply that statement above to non belief in fairies as well, or to anything else that the statement rejects by following it.

It might depend upon the weight you give to slim evidence, as opposed to the absence of evidence?

As an example of relative evidential strength; one might argue that 'this universe is an illusion', especially if any apparent evidence is, therefore, deemed to be illusory (by being part of the universe). By redefining the existing evidence as false, one could justify their support of their 'un-evidenced' case.

Cutting back to the topic, the scientific case, as it stands now, cannot explain everything from an uncaused first cause, as I will show:

Take the case of genesis of the 'stuff of the universe' from quantum indeterminacy.

We have postulated (and have some evidence from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift) that quantum virtual particles can spontaneously come into existence compliant with supersymmetry (i.e: the particles and anti-particles appear and annihalate back to nothingness, everywhere and all the time, unless conditions somehow separate them, making them become 'real'). This virtual nascency is dependent upon some sort of vacuum energy being intrinsic and ubiquitous.

From the cosmological constant, we can figure out what the magnitude of this vaccuum energy might be (dependent upon cosmological models it could be up to a significant 10^113 joules per cubic meter, but under ALL models is non-zero).

We have never observed negative or anti-energy. So this mechanism of generation of the universe from nothing by producing virtual opposites, falls apart at this point and we come back to the question of where the vaccuum energy came from? What caused the cause of all the other stuff?

Realistically, the existence of everything in the universe is indicative of something - it is real, hard, evidence, but to what may it be attributed?

Definitely not 'the non-existence of God', that has no explanatory power in this situation at all. It avoids the question.

By definition atheism MUST have NO evidence of the existence of God to be valid. It must hold that the existence of everything is not even slightly, possibly, evidential of the existence of God.

One highly probable option for the current existence of everything is an 'uncaused first cause'. What this is, we don't know (but it is one of the definitions of God, that applies only to God and nothing else concievable). So maybe the existence of God is evidenced on a massive scale but we aren't defining it that way?

Either way, the atheist case is un-evidenced - totally. The slightest bit of evidence for the existence of God negates atheism.

originally posted by: chr0naut
By definition atheism MUST have NO evidence of the existence of God to be valid. It must hold that the existence of everything is not even slightly, possibly, evidential of the existence of God.

I would make one slight correction and add that they must have no convincing evidence for the existence of god.

I'm an atheist because I haven't been shown convincing evidence of god.
Show me convincing evidence and I stop being an atheist.

Then we can start talking about whether it's Joe Pesci, Allah, or Jesus.

And before anyone claims that I'm agnostic, an agnostic isn't sure of the existence of god. How can you believe in something if you're not sure it exists.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
My point was that scientific method cannot prove the existence of God. As I've said before, it is the wrong tool.

It cannot prove the existence of god because there is no evidence to test. If there was, then the scientific method could indeed attempt to prove it. It's not the wrong tool, it's a problem with having no observations to start with or use to make testable predictions. What do you consider to be a better tool than science?

Hitchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" can be applied to atheism, too.

That statement is contradictory if you apply it to atheism. Atheism is simply lack of one belief. God is asserted without evidence, therefor it makes sense to dismiss god without evidence. Atheists aren't actually asserting any claims, they just reject other people's claims. Atheism is just the default position as a result. Same thing with fairies. You might as well apply that statement above to non belief in fairies as well, or to anything else that the statement rejects by following it.

It might depend upon the weight you give to slim evidence, as opposed to the absence of evidence?

As an example of relative evidential strength; one might argue that 'this universe is an illusion', especially if any apparent evidence is, therefore, deemed to be illusory (by being part of the universe). By redefining the existing evidence as false, one could justify their support of their 'un-evidenced' case.

Cutting back to the topic, the scientific case, as it stands now, cannot explain everything from an uncaused first cause, as I will show:

Take the case of genesis of the 'stuff of the universe' from quantum indeterminacy.

We have postulated (and have some evidence from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift) that quantum virtual particles can spontaneously come into existence compliant with supersymmetry (i.e: the particles and anti-particles appear and annihalate back to nothingness, everywhere and all the time, unless conditions somehow separate them, making them become 'real'). This virtual nascency is dependent upon some sort of vacuum energy being intrinsic and ubiquitous.

From the cosmological constant, we can figure out what the magnitude of this vaccuum energy might be (dependent upon cosmological models it could be up to a significant 10^113 joules per cubic meter, but under ALL models is non-zero).

We have never observed negative or anti-energy. So this mechanism of generation of the universe from nothing by producing virtual opposites, falls apart at this point and we come back to the question of where the vaccuum energy came from? What caused the cause of all the other stuff?

Realistically, the existence of everything in the universe is indicative of something - it is real, hard, evidence, but to what may it be attributed?

Definitely not 'the non-existence of God', that has no explanatory power in this situation at all. It avoids the question.

By definition atheism MUST have NO evidence of the existence of God to be valid. It must hold that the existence of everything is not even slightly, possibly, evidential of the existence of God.

One highly probable option for the current existence of everything is an 'uncaused first cause'. What this is, we don't know (but it is one of the definitions of God, that applies only to God and nothing else concievable). So maybe the existence of God is evidenced on a massive scale but we aren't defining it that way?

Either way, the atheist case is un-evidenced - totally. The slightest bit of evidence for the existence of God negates atheism.

By definition you say? Would you mind pointing out exactly where in the definition it says that one must have absolutely no evidence or suggestion or indication of a God or a higher power? And why would one instance of arguable divine activity offset hundreds of years of science consistently proving supernatural phenomena to be perfectly natural events with rational explanations? Because once you have proven atheism to be incorrect that is just the tip of the iceberg. Then you have to demonstrate its identity and its purpose. Where it comes from and what it can do. Again we are talking about practical application of definition. It is folly to overlook these questions once you have confirmed its existence.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Definitely not 'the non-existence of God', that has no explanatory power in this situation at all. It avoids the question.

I totally agree that the non existence of god has no explanatory power.

And in concept god can do anything, so can be placed anywhere we need an explanation without any problems.
There is no greater explanatory concept in the history of humanity, the application of these explanations is where the problems arise.

I did a thread a while back and I was able to reduce my list of possible arguments for a god/ID from 4 down to 2.

1) The sun/moon ratio allowing perfect eclipses. (Scientific explanation is "coincidence")
2) If there were quantum processes that created the big bang, and time was created in the big bang. Then how could those processes happen as nothing can change without time as a reference point. (Scientific explanation is "we cannot speculate on what preceded the big bang")

These are the best arguments I can think of however they are not convincing to me. And whilst we can use god to explain those 2 points perfectly, I'm unaware of any applications that can be gained from that explanation.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's kinda like the preamble that states: We find these truths to be self evident...

Something cannot be truth unless it is self evident they have to experience it for themselves... sure they've heard of say quarks to super luminal black holes or maybe they haven't ever so when they do? All of a sudden they exist right then and there but that requires faith or belief that they do to some no it's science this thing does exist despite the label we have given it even though that label is not it... it is an effect with a name... and that effect arises again and again statistically under these conditions even though the condition will never be the same even under strict control just more statistically likely to occur in the chain of events produced to observe the effect.

Of course in relativity so many people are wholly unaware of many many things... those also unaware of many many things are afraid of those many many things and what they could mean when nothing is wrong with what they currently experience except some things they have seen but don't like or are afraid of and don't want to experience it... and well free will, but when they try to hold others and the world back? Out of that ignorance and fear of something existing? Once it is existing it is already out of Pandora's box and cannot go back in there...

So what are we left with that came out of the box too? Hope. Hope that we can understand all of this and not fear it or be afraid of it but understand it of course that means for progress there has to be an attempt for tolerance and a willingness to understand to be able to remove ignorance as the very tree of knowledge grows from the tree of life itself...

a reply to: chr0naut

It might depend upon the weight you give to slim evidence, as opposed to the absence of evidence?

I'm curious as to what you mean by "slim evidence". Philosophical statements based on undefined (or assumed) premises are not evidence.

Definitely not 'the non-existence of God', that has no explanatory power in this situation at all. It avoids the question.

Who says that lack of belief in a god explains anything? It doesn't explain, just like lack of belief in fairies doesn't explain anything. Where is the explanatory power in disbelieving anything that doesn't have evidence to support it? Atheism rejects belief in god, plain and simple. It doesn't need evidence, it's just the logical default, like lack of belief in fairies. You don't need evidence that proves fairies don't exist. You can rule it out because there is no evidence that suggests they DO. Existence of anything is a positive assertion, which means burden of proof is on the person who made the claim that something exists.

God has no explanatory power without invoking numerous assumptions as well, it's just a simple cop out explanation based on the fact that we don't know the answer to everything, so people invoke some magical all powerful all encompassing being that can break the laws of physics and exists outside of spacetime itself.

By definition atheism MUST have NO evidence of the existence of God to be valid. It must hold that the existence of everything is not even slightly, possibly, evidential of the existence of God.

Um, no. There is nothing it MUST have, aside from lack of belief in god. It is not a belief system, nor even a belief, it is rejection of somebody else's claim / belief due to lack of evidence. The existence of everything is evidence that everything exists. Not for god or materialism. You need to be way more specific than that if you wish to suggest there is any evidence of god.

One highly probable option for the current existence of everything is an 'uncaused first cause'. What this is, we don't know (but it is one of the definitions of God, that applies only to God and nothing else concievable). So maybe the existence of God is evidenced on a massive scale but we aren't defining it that way?

Highly probable? How could you possibly know that? You are appealing to personal belief here. I see it as much more probable that the universe functions in a cyclical fashion, rather than a linear fashion.

Either way, the atheist case is un-evidenced - totally. The slightest bit of evidence for the existence of God negates atheism.

Until that alleged evidence has been objectively proven, atheism remains the logical default.