View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 06:20 PM   #107
Nicato
Next-Gen Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

[CONTINUED...]

Quote:
Also, you continually making statements such as "your God hypothesis" simply proves that you are constructing your own argument for God and rebutting it, not responding directly to mine.
If you are making a claim about the universe you are making an hypothesis. If, as you say, the first-cause could be filled by the equally unknowable string hypothesis and multiverse hypothesis, then both of those hypothesis are on par with yours.

Quote:
You're expanding on your original statement, but you're still not answering the basic question of how you can quantitatively know that the world is not designed. You're assuming that the process of evolution itself has no purpose or design.
You're asking me to prove a negative when all I've ever said was that there was no evidence for design. Again, you're proving that you can't grasp a simple argument.

Quote:
Do show me where you think I agreed with that so I can clear up your misunderstanding.
Nick: "Your particularly use of the "boundaries" of the natural world is misleading since you ultimately cannot (and perhaps in principle are unable to) demonstrate that there is anything beyond its "city limits." Even going back to the big bang does nothing to positively (key word) affirm this. (And if it does, one has to wonder what one means by "anything" in a point where our understanding of space and time might not apply.)

As to my alleged question begging, I chuckle. There is, of course, nothing remotely circular about an argument which assumes as its premise that the world we are living in now--the natural world--is the only world worth basing a premise on. Surely it would seem silly for me to seriously consider the Nosgothic Realm of Soul Revear or the universe of Harry Potter.

It isn't enough for you to simply say that there are "limitations" to the natural world and therefore we should critically consider other worlds, since its limitations ultimately say nothing as to it's singularity or plurality. You could solve it in an instance, though, by demonstrating what exactly I am missing before appealing to it. But you, of course, cannot present any positive evidence for a supernatural, can you? (The answer is no.) Well, lucky for you, that I am more than willing to concede that your lack of positive evidence ultimately says nothing as to the objective existence of a supernatural. I just wish you would concede that your appealing to the so-called "boundaries" of the natural world does not, by itself, mean there is anything else worth considering, lest we consider the Nosgothic Realm (equal plausibility).
"

Mike: "You say "so-called 'boundaries'" as though I'm making it up, when it's an established tenant of modern physics. If the universe is not infinite and cannot perpetuate its existence by its own self-contained laws, then a supernatural cause is not a possibility, but a necessity. Now, perhaps we are, as some string theorists have postured, just one of an infinite number of universes in an infinite multiverse filled with universes that spawn other universes -- though most people would not find that to be much less of a stretch of the imagination than faith in God. There are any number of other possible supernatural causes, and we have no way of knowing what actually caused and constructed our universe since we can only quantitatively measure that which is within our universe...

...Which brings me back to the first point I made. It's this unknowable truth that serves as a foundation for faith, and it's why faith in God is not subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method. Ultimately, we can see that some 15 billion years ago, our universe popped into existence and began "expanding". All matter and energy came out of nothing, as did spacetime itself and all physical laws that have governed the universe in such a way as to allow for our miraculous world's existence. That may not be "proof" that God exists, but for billions of people including myself, it is such a profound thought that we simply cannot fathom that our existence is without intrinsic design, purpose, and meaning. Certainly the notion that such an amazing and complex universe popped into existence merely out of some supernatural "chance" is no less a stretch of the imagination than any belief in God.
"
Nick: "[i]See, I don't mind you calling me names (as if "you and your kind" was the worst insult ever) but I do give a damn when you distort my position. I do not an any way suggest that you are making it up, only that your use of the word is "misleading." Hell, I even concede that limitations do exist: "It isn't enough, for the purposes of this debate, to assert that there are limitations to the natural world. It being finite and all (in time if not space), that fact is patently obvious."

Nick: "See, I don't mind you calling me names (as if "you and your kind" was the worst insult ever) but I do give a damn when you distort my position. I do not an any way suggest that you are making it up, only that your use of the word is "misleading." Hell, I even concede that limitations do exist: "It isn't enough, for the purposes of this debate, to assert that there are limitations to the natural world. It being finite and all (in time if not space), that fact is patently obvious."

And nevermind the fact that you completely ignored the point, which is that said limitations ultimately say nothing as to the plurality or singularity of the universe..
"

Mike: "I didn't ignore the point, you just didn't go anywhere with it. I agree with this. So... ???."

Nick: "So declaring the limitations of our universe does nothing to help (or hinder) your cause."

Mike: "It's just an obvious acknowledgment that there is a beyond, and limit to naturalistic understanding."

----

So there you have it. You clearly agree that declaring limitations isn't evidence of a beyond. (And save the inevitable "duh" remark.)
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote