Relatability... a good reason to believe in a creator
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Best example of special pleading I've seen in a while.
Nyarlathotep "Best example of special pleading I've seen in a while."
Ah but he doesn't care. You see when said in his OP be believed in reason, he apparently meant reason carried no weight in the real world, and holds us back.
Kenny33, in your OP you wrote, “I am a person that believes in reason... if someone presents to me a set of options (a,b,c, etc..) and I have to choose one, I will choose the option with the highest chance of being correct (I guess it is common sense!)”
You “believe” in reason. I, however, view it as a tool to be applied when actually thinking. You may say there’s no difference between those two things and you would be incorrect. You may say that the latter of the two is what you meant, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case given your subsequent posts.
You also said when presented with a set of options you would choose the one that you consider to have the highest chance of being correct. I think that is a perfect recipe for failure since you accept such self-limiting parameters.
Let’s use one of your (didactic, imo) comparisons:
There is a creature in my jacket pocket. From the following, please choose the one you think has the highest chance of actually being there - A. Platypus, B. Godzilla, C. Pygmy Possum, D. Coopers Hawk.
You go ahead and let me know which one you choose, based on logic. I’ll respond by telling you that you are wrong. Why are you wrong? Well, the two most glaring reasons are that you’ve far too limited a set of parameters (and, btw, you just don’t have access to them all). Most importantly, you, as is evidenced in your arguments throughout this string, would not dream of refusing to be trapped by such obvious trickery and answer, “None of those options.”
Kenny33, you profess belief in reason but appear to eschew utilizing it.
"There is a creature in my jacket pocket. From the following, please choose the one you think has the highest chance of actually being there - A. Platypus, B. Godzilla, C. Pygmy Possum, D. Coopers Hawk."
This question has unlimited reasonable possibilities... but the question "why anything exists" doesnt.
Also I never claimed that a creator is the only option to "why anything exists", I said that if we examine all the options we can think of, this option seems to be the natural choice.
you can refer to this comment as well: https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/relatability-good-rea...
"I said that if we examine all the options we can think of"
Then I propose that in every list of options, "there is a possibility a god does no exist and all phenomena can be explained without the supernatural" is included in such lists.
Fair enough, do you have any objections? You want to be rational and logical, so let us insert this option into every list. If it does not have merit, then by default it will fall to the wayside when selecting possible options.
I don't think he does.
"there is a possibility a god does no exist and all phenomena can be explained without the supernatural"
yes naturally, but i wouldnt list it as an option, what you wrote is nothing but a description for some other options, you simply took a bunch of possible options and put them in one category in other words:
if we had 4 options A/B/C/D
you took B/C/D and said they share specific feature different than A.... That specific feature (natural cause) sounds very appealing and I agree... my question is What are Exactly options B/C/D? They cant be the right solution if they hold no Explanatory power.
Can you share any theory for "why anything exsits" that is a "natural cause" and have "Explanatory powers"? If not, then options B/C/D are as good as empty blanks.
An unevidenced, unfalsifiable and untestable deity using inexplicable magic has no explanatory powers whatsoever. It's just a bare claim, based on irrational arguments.
As previously explained we know natural phenomena are at least a possible explanation, we don't know that about deities.
"An unevidenced, unfalsifiable and untestable deity using inexplicable magic has no explanatory powers whatsoever. It's just a bare claim"
What magic are you talking about? but anyways it does hold explanatory powers if it is able to answer the question :)
It answers no questions, certainly in regards to the origins of the universe simply claiming god did it using magic is not an answer, as it has no explanatory powers. It offers nothing beyond the bare claim.
"It offers nothing beyond the bare claim."
as long as the claim can effectively explain to us the original question then it has explanatory powers, I thought you were a fan of dictionary definitions :
Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to.
Kenny33, you posited that, “as long as the claim can effectively explain to us the original question then it has explanatory powers”
What is it to ‘effectively explain’ something? Is the acceptance that the claim as an explanation subjective or objective?
After all, for centuries, Aristotelian ideas on how the body works provided an effective explanation to questions regarding human biology.
The claim god did it using magic can't explain or answer anything, that's precisely the point everyone is making, but that you keep ignoring with your endless repetition of the bare claim.
Kenny "Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to."
I know what it means, but quoting the definition doesn't change the fact that your bare claim your god did it using magic claim DOESN'T HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY POWERS...NONE. if it did you'd have offered something, and you have not, just the bare claim.
I think it's clear this is another simple concept you'll never be able to grasp. Just as endlessly using the word reality in your claims doesn't mean they reflect reality. Or your tedious repetition you use reason, when you clearly don't.
Your beliefs are a faith base superstition, hacked clumsily from the older superstition of christianity, itself derived from Judaism, which in turn absorbed aspects of earlier superstitious myths.
You have no evidence, the claim has no explanatory powers, and your sole first cause argument was woefully irrational.
The only thing your posts have shown is hubris, and closed minded bias.
Any magical being has explanatory powers but what reason do you have to put them forward as an explanation in the first place ?
All theists seem to have done is created definitions of a powerful magical being, who by the same definitions is indistinguishable from that being not existing at all.
Unless you can show some evidence of this 'god' who incidentally is often described as a god who not only created us to have a relationship with, but wants everyone to know him and have a relationship with him , has every mighty and powerful attribute you can imagine, more glorious names than you can shake a hat at... yet is the same as absolutely no god existing at all.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that if a being were to create us with the express purpose of having a relationship with it that a smidgen of proof would exist ?
Such a being surely would be so much more than a possibility !!
"there is a possibility a god does no exist and all phenomena can be explained without the supernatural"
yes naturally, but i wouldnt list it as an option, what you wrote is nothing but a description for some other options, you simply took a bunch of possible options and put them in one category in other words:"
So I must assume you are running away from my fair proposal? I am not negotiating with you or playing word games, get honest.
There you have it folks. kenny33 postures as if he is intelligent and has a sane perception of the universe. But when asked to insert one little option into a list of options, his scrotum shrinks and his balls disappeared.
Kenny33, you wrote, “This question has unlimited reasonable possibilities... but the question "why we exist" doesnt. (sic)”
What measurement(s) did you utilize to draw the latter conclusion?
You ask ‘why’. Are you sure you don’t mean ‘HOW did we come to be’? They are two different things.
How we came to be has been and is being studied by folks far, far more versed in science than I. They have provided testable, measurable answers to a great many parts of that question.
As to WHY we exist...I think that to be unanswerable as there likely isn’t a reason.
"What measurement(s) did you utilize to draw the latter conclusion?"
no measurements, I just looked at reality...
"You ask ‘why’. Are you sure you don’t mean ‘HOW did we come to be’? They are two different things."
I am asking about reason not purpose, sure I can say "How did anything exist"
"How we came to be has been and is being studied by folks far, far more versed in science than I. They have provided testable, measurable answers to a great many parts of that question."
if they do then thats great ! I will wait until they get a full answer, if it happens to have Explanatory powers then I will convert to atheism :)
Kenny33, you declared, “...then I will convert to atheism :)”
That’s so funny!
I know :) you know whats also funny? this useless comment.
Then decided the most plausible explanation was something never once evidenced in reality, a supernatural cause, something you can't even show to be possible, let alone plausible. Something that has no explanatory powers at all beyond the bare claim god did it, using inexplicable magic.
You clearly didn't look at reality at all, as reality does not support your god claim.
RE: "There is a creature in my jacket pocket. From the following, please choose the one you think has the highest chance of actually being there - A. Platypus, B. Godzilla, C. Pygmy Possum, D. Coopers Hawk."
The question does not have unlimited possibilities. Godzilla, like your god, has no evidence for his actual existence and there is only one. We can eliminate both of these as having little to no possibility. Until something has evidence for it's possibility, it has no possibility. You do not get to randomly think things into existence.
"Until something has evidence for it's possibility, it has no possibility."
Bold claim... and obviously wrong
@Kenny, That which is asserted without evidence can simply be rejected without evidence. You do not get to imagine things into existence. It's not a bold claim. It's just common sense. We don't have to go about hunting down every inane assertion people make. Possibility needs evidence.
Cyber re: multiple choice question
I’m good at these, and I’m not limiting myself....is it dried snot balls?
@Kenny re: the question "why we exist"
Why oh why oh why? :)
I punched this question into google ...”why does anaesthetic work?” (This is relevant...)
I got two answers (pop up, didn’t “click”)
1. General anesthesia works by interrupting nerve signals in your brain and body. It prevents your brain from processing pain and from remembering what happened during your surgery.Dec 28, 2018
2. Scientists don't actually know why general anesthesia works—though some scientists in Australia think they might be one step closer to the answer. ... The "knocked out" part happens because the general anesthesia forces your brain cells to communicate with each other less.Jan 10, 2018
Now there may be more (obviously) accurate up-to-date info...but for my purpose, this suffices.
Number 1 above answers a “how” (even though I asked why). The second is the “why” answer.
Science with “why we exist” can answer a lot of “how” ...how we evolved, how they determine “age” or “time”, etc etc...using more precise descriptive language, figuring shit out and putting it to “use” (otherwise what good is it?)
The “why” part ... “why we exist”. We, as a species have adapted (evolved). We, as a species, might not keep “winning the race”.
The “why we exist” question maybe passed down to viruses.
It just “is”.
Well well, it appears I am not alone in my estimation of his grandiose OP claim. I can't say i am surprised.
The universe needed no god for its formation, as the Big Bang did happen. Time possibly did not start until that time, as we can observe the universe still expanding, and certain parts getting further and further away from us.
Seth MacFarlane is correct, and I am sorry but your god did not start everything.
I re-read everything again, and I’m going to vent a little, but first ... Sheldon, the “fuck off” was meant jokingly with a punch to the arm (sorry if the text didn’t communicate that)...anyway, we’re probably moving towards creation.
This is a joke. What is “reasonable” about pointing to the “wonders of nature” and saying a loving agent (creator) purposely made it...then shutting one’s eyes to the fact this “wonder” is out to kill us. It’s not easy to survive on earth. I can enjoy the beauty of nature, but you better not find yourself lost in it...
We, as a species have adapted to our environment and our evolutionary advantage is our brain and ability to communicate and build and change our environment to suite us.
The arrogance that we were made in some creator’s image (what about other species, although I am species biased)...they’re evolving and adapting, no different than us, those with their own unique advantages.
Reasonable to dismiss our collective knowledge and growth to maintain an imaginative “super-daddy” who doesn’t need a super duper daddy to exist. This “thing” that is so beyond us can just “exist” BUT the universe can’t?!? I am no scientist but even I can grip the idea of quantum field theory...
What you want is greatness (believers) and to feel special, and that can only come from thinking you’re (as a group) from unquestionable greatness.
To stop and realize we come from humble, small beginnings with no “purpose” and no answers is unsettling (?? uncomfortable??) - a result from our evolved brain. But it is. It is as close to what is true that we can get at this time.
A believer may never get enough scientific proof to shake his faith and an atheist may not believe in a god/creator/agent until there is evidence of such.
The standard for evidence is the difference. What one accepts as evidence. My standard use to be low. I am not more intelligent now then I was. I was convinced by a low standard of reason and evidence.
I raised that standard. I am fucking pleased that I did...but that was my decision. I raised my standard for a lot of various things in my life and again I’m grateful I did.
If ever, this creator/agent/god decides to actually provide a reasonable standard of evidence for its existence I will be more than happy to examine it - but I will not lower my standard to meet “it”.
After all, I’m just a human.
@White Re: "If ever, this creator/agent/god decides to actually provide a reasonable standard of evidence for its existence I will be more than happy to examine it - but I will not lower my standard to meet “it”."
... *standing on top of table cheering and clapping*......
Ain't that the truth, you nailed it in one.