What type of atheist are you?

[leroy]

Nope. See post 124.

In summary:

1) it makes no sense to demand a "cause", at all, if time itself starts at the singularity. The cause of something has to be present beforehand, so if there is no beforehand there cannot be a cause, it seems to me.

2) Both God and Father Christmas could exist but there is no objective evidence for either, so science would apply Ockham's Razor and would make no use of either hypothesis. Fr. Christmas and God are in that sense exactly comparable.

The question therefore becomes, why is it we all agree to use Ockham's Razor to dismiss Father Christmas, but many of us decline to apply it to God? In other words, the onus is on the believer to account for why the two are treated differently in his worldview. (I have tried to answer that as well.)

Because Oakham`s Razor is not the only nor even the most important reason why we reject Santa Clause.


The main reason we reject Santa is because we have a better explanation for presents in the Christmas tree and a better explanation for each and every tjing that is commonly atributed to Santa Clause.


Would you say the same thing about God? Would you say that you have a better (and indisputable) naturalistic explanation for all the stuff that is commonly atributed to God?

 

[exchemist]

Because Oakham`s Razor is not the only nor even the most important reason why we reject Santa Clause.


The main reason we reject Santa is because we have a better explanation for presents in the Christmas tree and a better explanation for each and every tjing that is commonly atributed to Santa Clause.


Would you say the same thing about God? Would you say that you have a better (and indisputable) naturalistic explanation for all the stuff that is commonly atributed to God?

Yes, maybe you are right that we don't actually need to invoke Ockham's Razor to dismiss the existence of Fr. Christmas in practice. (It's more of a pedant's justification for a negative we cannot prove.)

But you need to ask yourself why we consider the Parents explanation for presents is "better" than the Fr. Christmas one. What makes it better? The answer is objective evidence. We have objective evidence that parents put out presents and pretend they are Fr. Christmas.

We have no objective evidence of God.

As I've told you many times, science is not obliged to have an explanation for everything. No data, no explanation. Science is however obliged to have objective evidence to support any explanation that it offers. So you cannot demand that science choose which is the "better" of the possible explanations if there is no evidence.

In fact, as there is no evidence for God in nature, God cannot be part of any explanation in science.

I don't know why you keep flogging this dead horse. Trying to get science to admit God as a hypothesis is a waste of your time. By all means believe in God, as many scientists do, but accept that the reasons for belief, while various and sincerely held, cannot rely on scientifically admissible evidence from nature.

 

[leroy]

Yes, maybe you are right that we don't actually need to invoke Ockham's Razor to dismiss the existence of Fr. Christmas in practice. (It's more of a pedant's justification for a negative we cannot prove.)

But you need to ask yourself why we consider the Parents explanation for presents is "better" than the Fr. Christmas one. What makes it better? The answer is objective evidence. We have objective evidence that parents put out presents and pretend they are Fr. Christmas.

We have no objective evidence of God.

That is my point, and given that you don’t have objective (conclusive) evidence for “nature did it” when it comes to the origin of the universe, life, morality, fine tuning, conscience, free will and all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God……………………and given you do have objective and conclusive evidence for “parents did it” when it comes to presents in the Christmas tree, you cant say that santa clause and god are equal.

We have good positive and conclusive reasons to reject santa, and in the case of God, we simply don’t know………..agree?

 

[exchemist]

That is my point, and given that you don’t have objective (conclusive) evidence for “nature did it” when it comes to the origin of the universe, life, morality, fine tuning, conscience, free will and all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God……………………and given you do have objective and conclusive evidence for “parents did it” when it comes to presents in the Christmas tree, you cant say that santa clause and god are equal.

We have good positive and conclusive reasons to reject santa, and in the case of God, we simply don’t know………..agree?

No. Now you are arguing a rather different point.

We have been discussing the explanation for an observed physical phenomenon: the appearance of presents. One explanation invoked the agency of parents, for which we have objective evidence and the other invoked the agency of Fr. Christmas, for which we have no evidence. We could equally well have invoked the agency of God, for which we have no evidence either.

Fr. Christmas is thus exactly like God in this sense: a hypothesised entity for which we have no evidence.

 

[leroy]

No. Now you are arguing a rather different point.

We have been discussing the explanation for an observed physical phenomenon: the appearance of presents. One explanation invoked the agency of parents, for which we have objective evidence and the other invoked the agency of Fr. Christmas, for which we have no evidence. We could equally well have invoked the agency of God, for which we have no evidence either.

Fr. Christmas is thus exactly like God in this sense: a hypothesised entity for which we have no evidence.

but in the case of Santa we have strong and conclusive evidence against him being the cause of presents.................you dont have strong conclusive evidnece against God being the cause morality, free will, universe, life, fine tunning and all the stuff that is commonly atributed to God......

agree?


in the case of Santa we know with certanity that he is not the cause

in the case of God we dont know....


agree?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

>Science is basically moot and irrelevant. It's merely an arrogant diversion, something to get our mind off of worrying when and how our end to life will come. God has an answer for that if you seek him instead of trying to find a way to pat yourself on the back for making life more comfortable for yourself.<

Normally I would just let this sort of post slide through, but since you've addressed it to me...

1. I specifically stated that God has no place in science, and also explicitly stated that this is the case even if God exists. That has exactly nothing to do with belief in God or not. It is entirely possible to be a scientist and hold a belief in God. Indeed, that was my point, although one you have seemingly misconstrued. I mean, stop and think for a moment. What is it in my post you actually disagree with? Do you think God is falsifiable? Really? Do you think science and God try to answer the same questions? Just what is it you wouldn't agree with in my post?

2. I have, in my life, been a Christian, although it was a long time ago. And I have, in my life, honestly sought God. But by all means, judge me. Because that's what your religious texts say you should do, right? Ooops.

3. Arrogance is in how one acts, not in what label is placed on someone. So, me being an atheist doesn't make me arrogant. Acting arrogantly makes me arrogant. I would say that is something I occasionally do, and have worked on through my life. Overwhelmingly those around me would suggest I am pretty humble and self-deprecating, but I'm no shy flower, and...like all people...I may cross the line from time to time. But there is nothing in my post expressing arrogance, or against God, and you don't know me.
Your post, on the other hand? I mean...yeesh...

I don't worry about how or when my life is going to end. What a weird preconception. I just live it to the best of my ability.

 

[Valjean]

Because Oakham`s Razor is not the only nor even the most important reason why we reject Santa Clause.


The main reason we reject Santa is because we have a better explanation for presents in the Christmas tree and a better explanation for each and every tjing that is commonly atributed to Santa Clause.


Would you say the same thing about God? Would you say that you have a better (and indisputable) naturalistic explanation for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to God?

Yes we do have explanations for many of the things attributed to God, and religion's been in retreat for a couple hundred years as science has steadily demystified the church's miraculous evidences of God.

 

[exchemist]

but in the case of Santa we have strong and conclusive evidence against him being the cause of presents.................you dont have strong conclusive evidnece against God being the cause morality, free will, universe, life, fine tunning and all the stuff that is commonly atributed to God......

agree?


in the case of Santa we know with certanity that he is not the cause

in the case of God we dont know....


agree?

You are now asking a a question based on a non-scientific assumption, viz. that there was a "cause". This is something for which there is (a) no evidence and (b) speculative extrapolation from the Big Bang model suggests is meaningless.

You also now introduce a load of non-scientific philosophy: morality, free will, etc.

I can give you a metaphysical answer, if you like, which is that I, personally, think it is possible there is a Creator of the cosmos.

But answering this question of yours can't be done with science.


Addendum:
To make a fair comparison between the concepts of a God and Fr. Christmas, you need to compare the value in invoking each of them as explanations for the same issue, not different ones. That way, we can compare apples with apples.

For example, one could invoke God as an alternative explanation for Christmas presents. And then the answer for God would be identical to the answer for Fr. Christmas.

Or, one could invoke God or Fr. Christmas as as explanation for why the shape of the continental shelf of S America matches that of West Africa. And the answer would be the same for both: no evidence for either, whereas we do have evidence of tectonic processes being responsible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

None of them are accurate representations.

I'll add my own:

4. God is like any other undetectable, unverifiable, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable entity. Like extra-dimensional unicorns or graviton fairies or leprechauns. There's no reason to think they are real and there's no way to find out. So why believe it...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you assert that the existence of Aliens is more probable than the existence of God?......

Absolutely.
Simple occam's razor.

God is a fantastical claim without precedents and requires LOADS of assumptions.
Aliens... not so much. Aliens are just biological beings. Lots of precedents of biological beings.

So right out the gates, aliens existing is far more probable for the simple fact that it requires far less assumptions.

Prediction: you won’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no.

Seems the prediction failed (at least in my answer).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My point is that there are good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause………So if you compare God with Santa Clause, you most also have good / empirical / conclusive reasons to reject God….. (in other words you have a burden proof)...... So do you have evidence against God?

If you what to avoid the burden proof (like most internet atheist) then you most compare good with aliens,…. (there is not conclusive evidence ether way)

The poster just told you the basis for his/her comparison of god and santa.
Why do you reply as if (s)he didn't?

The basis of his comparison is not "reasons to reject it". It rather is the "evidence in support of both". Which is zero.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.


So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?

Literally ANY claim about the origins of the universe will be at least as "good" in terms of explanatory power as "god dun it", because the explanatory power of "god dun it", is exactly zero.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok how did any of that made the gap smaller.... Or to put it in different words, how did any of that made the existence of God less likely tham before the discovery?

It depends on what kind of god you are talking about.
It certainly made the gap smaller (eventhough the gap was already as good as closed) for your average YEC god.

As for the god at the other end of the spectrum, the deity that supposedly triggered the big bang and then sat back and simply watched all unfold from a distance without intervention.... no amount of discovery would ever close that "gap", because there is no gap there, because the very concept of such a deity is unfalsifiable.

So no amount of evidence could ever falsify it. The unfalsifiable can't be falsified by definition. Neither can it be demonstrated off course. Unfalsifiable claims are literally infinite in number, only really limited by human imagination. Such claims are utterly useless, meritless and meaningless as a result of that. And thus can be safely ignored and discarded at face value.

Ok but do you know thay God is not the cause of the universe?

You can't know that because it's an unfalsifiable claim.

In the same way we know thay santa is not the cause of presents?

Because that IS a falsifiable claim.

But note that santa not being the cause of presents under the tree on christmass morning, does not falsify santa itself. After all, it could very well be that according to santa's standards, all children are simply too naughty to be eligible for presents.

 

[Goddess Kit]

It's a good thing apologists have day jobs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But in the case of santa we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

In the case of God, "we dont know" if he is the cause of the universes

So Santa and God are not comparable


Agree?

They are comparable in terms of evidence in support of them.

Also, one of the reasons why the comparison as you frame it doesn't work, is because you defined your god extremely vaguely. If we would go into specific gods, like the literal god of the literal bible, then the comparison IS possible:

We know santa isn't the one who brings the gifts, just like we know jawhe isn't the one who created 2 humans from whom all other humans came.

We know the christmass gifts come from parents and not santa.
And we know humans come from evolution and not supernatural shenannigans in magical gardens with talking snakes and magical fruit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can show empirically and conclusively that parents is a better explanation than Santa for gifts

Which doesn't mean that santa doesn't exist.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Which doesn't mean that santa doesn't exist.

Who, other than children afraid to let go of childish things, is going to clamor for Santa to exist when there is no evidence for his existence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However we have positive verifiable and objective evidence that Santa is not the cause of presents in the Christmas tree.....

And we have positive verifiable and objective evidence that the christian god is not the cause of humans.

Would you say the same thing about god and the cause of the universe?

Or extra-dimensional unicorns and the cause of the universe?
Or a multi-verse and the cause of the universe?
Or the universe having a cause to begin with?


Sounds like you are setting up a ginormous argument from ignorance.

"we don't know, therefor my unfalsifiable god is a plausible valid option"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have good positive and conclusive reasons to reject santa, and in the case of God, we simply don’t know………..agree?

Only because the god you are talking about is unfalsifiable.

By definition, the unfalsifiable CAN NOT have any positive or conclusive reasons to consider it falsified. Or the opposite, for that matter...............................

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number and utterly meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who, other than children afraid to let go of childish things, is going to clamor for Santa to exist when there is no evidence for his existence?

I could honestly ask the exact same question and replace "santa" with "god" while being dead serious.