Nigel: “Therefore, the logical assumption is that the universe began through a natural process and did not require a supernatural agency to kick-start it.”

Also, of course, any “explanation” involving a “supernatural agency” ( whether it’s called “God” or anything else ) doesn’t actually explain anything, does it? It simply replaces one question with another, i.e. “Where did the Universe come from?” is replaced with, “Where did God/whatever come from?”, and we have the first step of an infinite regression.
This reminds me of this hypothetical conversation:
Christian: “The Universe is far too wonderful and complex to ‘just exist’! It must have been created by a superintelligent, supernatural Creator!”
Atheist: “OK, so where did your ‘superintelligent, supernatural Creator’ come from?”
Christian: “Well, nowhere – he just exists!”

So maybe we could say that the agnostic stance is a stance where the human imagination is calculated in to the answer and the atheist stance is the logical stance in which imagination is essentially useless because only things that are NOT imaginary are considered, like . . . evidence and maybe more importantly the logical stance does not imagine a pink unicorn might be there, it just observes? I am leaving out a bit but I am trying to zoom out a bit.

What if I said
Imagination vs. Reality is like Agnosticism vs. Atheistic

Is that too simple? I am trying to ask another question about what I know about our system for asking here.

Erm, kinda, but not quite.

After all, science requires quite a lot of imagination – look at some of the crazy ideas that cosmologists have come up with to explain our universe.

IMO, it’s not so much a situation of reality versus imagination as imagination under the constraint of logic versus imagination (more or less) unchecked.

“I realise this is all rather rambling, but I hope it makes some sense.”

That was great!

I would need a telescope to find a hole in this argument, certainly not a microscope and something odd there eh ?

“To return to an analogy I used earlier, if I were to claim the existence of an invisible pink unicorn in my back garden, the agnostic stance would have you acknowledging the valid possibility of its existence, whereas logic requires that one assume it does not exist until evidence is produced or found to support the claim.”

So maybe we could say that the agnostic stance is a stance where the human imagination is calculated in to the answer and the atheist stance is the logical stance in which imagination is essentially useless because only things that are NOT imaginary are considered, like . . . evidence and maybe more importantly the logical stance does not imagine a pink unicorn might be there, it just observes? I am leaving out a bit but I am trying to zoom out a bit.

What if I said
Imagination vs. Reality is like Agnosticism vs. Atheistic

Is that too simple? I am trying to ask another question about what I know about our system for asking here.

I have some insignificant issues with the starting point being atheism. If its nothing vs. anything, then I have the problem.

Well, it’s not the conclusion but the assumption.

Take the beginning of the universe as a starting point (heh!). We have pretty much zero data on what caused the big bang. We have some theories, some of which imply the existence of a universe before the big bang, some of which imply the existence of a kind of eternal multiverse, and some of which imply that nothing at all existed before the big bang, that time itself came into existence at that point. All of the theories are based on natural processes and laws that exist today and can be observed (or on logical extrapolations from what can be observed today).

Whichever theory is actually right, there is no need to complicate things by invoking any kind of supernatural agency, unless we find evidence that such an agency actually exists.

Therefore, the logical assumption is that the universe began through a natural process and did not require a supernatural agency to kick-start it.

One can apply similar reasoning to any situation in which a supernatural agency might get involved with the universe, and find that explanations always exist that require no supernatural agency. Thus, positing the existence of a supernatural agency is non-parsimonious.

So, the logical conclusion is that there probably is no god. Emphasis on the “probably”.

In the specific case of the starting point being the assumption of there being no god (as opposed to agnostic fence-sitting), in the absence of knowledge about any phenomenon, the principle of parsimony requires that one never assume the existence of something until evidence suggests otherwise.

Thus, given the choice between god, no god and agnosticism but no evidence, the logical, parsimonious assumption must be “no god”, because agnosticism tends to grant a likelihood “god” that is not warranted.

I realise this is all rather rambling, but I hope it makes some sense.

However, if its nothing vs. creationism I do not have the problem.

Creationism is the situation where specific claims are made that have been refuted by physical evidence, so I should jolly well hope you would not have a problem here!

Though I think i just contradicted myself because it should not matter what the something is.

It does matter if that “something” is known to be impossible.

If i have nothing vs ________ I can conclude that not knowing is more logical than determining starting at nothing (of course nothing here equals the natural laws of the universe )

It is true that one does not know, but agnosticism goes further than simply “we don’t know”. Agnosticism denies the applicability of logical thought to the issue.

To return to an analogy I used earlier, if I were to claim the existence of an invisible pink unicorn in my back garden, the agnostic stance would have you acknowledging the valid possibility of its existence, whereas logic requires that one assume it does not exist until evidence is produced or found to support the claim.

But once again, the broader issue is the false belief’s of millions.

I have no issue with people believing whatever the hell they like, as long as they don’t try to impose their belief system on other people.

So, to my mind, the main issue is that millions of voters feel they have the right to impose their belief system on other people.

Nigel Dipledge (138) said:

” A show entitled “I had a narrow escape but chance events came together in my favour” would lack a certain punch, wouldn’t it?”

Yes it would. About the show, I was able to watch about three or four episodes (quick wiki: 6 seasons with 58 shows) and in there I only saw one guy who claimed he was really really an atheist and IIRC he ended with sort of a confused wonder to him and not so sure of himself after that dramatic, emotional, stressful event. I have wondered out of pure curiosity though if others might have been on the show. Seems about 3 people go on per show. It can be hard to watch.

Nigel Depledge (139) said:

“After all, because the statement is so total, all it would take is one atheist remaining atheist while under fire to refute the claim”

Darn, yeah, “No” is kinda of specific and total, hmm I will have to concede that one, and as a bonus I won’t ask what you personally think about the question that naturally comes to mind after realizing the totality of “No”. Because, we do not possess empirical evidence of any such events and would therefor just be opinionated and such discussion should probably be left between friends and not on Phil’s blog.

to Nigel Depledge @140

I have some insignificant issues with the starting point being atheism. If its nothing vs. anything, then I have the problem. However, if its nothing vs. creationism I do not have the problem. Though I think i just contradicted myself because it should not matter what the something is. If i have nothing vs ________ I can conclude that not knowing is more logical than determining starting at nothing (of course nothing here equals the natural laws of the universe ) But once again, the broader issue is the false belief’s of millions.

to Nigel Depledge @142

Well, I was saying the logic behind taking on an atheistic view is moving to fast for your *basic religious folks* , I know in the case of family and friends their are some who cannot digest an atheist argument, when I see it not only as appealing but necessary to the discussion.

I was also speaking about the march of religion across the globe essentially. I don’t know of any great atheist movements in history or of any time when atheism was dominant across the world.

“Only with the advent of improved ways of learning about the world has it even been possible to postulate natural processes to account for such phenomena.”

This is why I said I think that atheistic viewpoints and logical conclusions are moving too fast for people who were raised or stayed or are religious to a large degree. Because the framework and the context for the argument of being atheist is more complete than ever today it will take time for others to come to the argument, give it weight, and possibly become at least accepting of the idea, which has happened to some degree but there is a long ways to go obviously.
—–

Thanks flip.

Odd thing, I say the logic behind choosing atheism is moving to fast but in actuality it seems religion is what moved so quickly and suffocated any other ideas about the Universe as a whole before anyone other view had a chance.

I disagree.

Recent studies have shown that the human mind has a tendency towards assigning agency to things that appear to operate independently of any obvious cause (such as the transition from day to night, the turn of the seasons, volcanoes, weather, tides and so on). Thus, when faced with phenomena that existing knowledge cannot explain, it is a natural tendency for humans to invent spirits and gods to account for what they see.

Only with the advent of improved ways of learning about the world has it even been possible to postulate natural processes to account for such phenomena. Even now, in casual conversation we still attiribute human-like awareness to weather phenomena and so on.

Creation is not the problem here either.

What, so you think it’s OK to teach kids stuff that is demonstrably false?

the problem is people like Bill Nye et al. who are self centered, selfish virtual hedonists

Evidence needed for all three claims here.

who can’t abide in [sic] a truly relativistic universe.

Eh?

First, what do you mean by a “relativistic universe”?

Second, do you have any evidence to support your tacit claim that our universe is “relativistic”?

Third, do you have any evidence that Bill Nye cannot abide a relativistic universe?

In a truly relativistic universe all theories about the origin of the universe, called Cosmology, are allowed.

Well, this kinda screws up any argument that our universe is relativistic, because the evidence we find within the universe directly refutes several of the accounts proposed for the universe’s origin (i.e. pretty much all creationist accounts).

Unless you are a Last Thursdayist, in which case all logic is out of the window anyhow.

they are all to be allowed because no one theory can be proven to be the Fact of its origin.

This is nuts.

Irrespective of whether or not we can prove one theory to be ultimately correct, we have already proven several proposed ideas (including all forms of creationism) to be wrong.

Your argument is akin to someone saying that, because no-one has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt who shot JFK, every accusation is equally valid, including known impossibilities such as Genghis Khan.

the Speed of Light is the Cosmological Constant,

No, these are different things. Maybe you should go and look up “Cosmological Constant” before trying to use the term in an argument, do you think?

and creation says it was the 1st thing created.

No. Genesis says that light was created first (not the speed of light; there is a difference), but there are dozens of other creation myths that have other starting points.

Physics tells us that light is embodied in particles of light they call photons. Creation tells us that the light was divided after being created, how could the creation theory know what the physicists only found out since Einstein?

Easy. The phrases in Genesis don’t mean what you are reading into them. Genesis has the light being separated from the darkness (day and night, remember?). Photons are simply the packets in which light travels. The two concepts are unrelated, except insofar as they both pertain to light in some way.

Creation theory tells us that the world hangs upon nothing,

It does no such thing.

and yet physicists didn’t find that out until sometime in the 1500′s?

It took natural philosophy centuries to overturn church dogma about the structure of the universe.

Creation theory tells us that fire was won’t [sic] to rain down from the sky, and that betimes great mountainous sized rocks and burning starlike objects have plunged into the seas and struck the earth, and mayhap do so yet again. physics shows us Meteors and comets and asteroids, and just recently realized that these objects striking the earth are more likely events than previously scientifically surmised.

This is just nonsense. Meteors and meteorites have been known since antiquity. What was not known until relatively recently was what they were and how they came to fall from the sky.

hence the NEO project and the latest NASA trip to an asteroid. To ascertain the feasibility of dismantling this threat that we first learned about Long ago from creation theory, not physics.

Utter rubbish. It was not until astronomy was a developed science that it was realised that meteorites pose a threat beyond the small risk of a person being directly struck by one. Creationism has certainly never made any predictions about large meteorites and the potential effect one could have on Earth.

That you Bill, and Tom and your trembling host cannot concede knowledge of the universe and/or its origin without utter dependence upon your ways and means of knowing, should not be the problem of other Free Thinking individuals.

Yes? Tell me about other ways of knowing.

AFAICT, if you don’t check what you think you know by comparing it against reality, then you know nothing.

And if you are checking what you think you know by comparing it with reality, you are doing science.

Take a number and get in line, who do you effing think you are?

Substantially more educated and knowledgeable than you, that much is obvious.

You cannot prove one thing about which you speak, without and that I should submit to your reasoning.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Could you try re-writing the sentence in English, if you wouldn’t mind?

Your logic does not prove the reality.

Not by itself, no. But it can certainly prove that creationism is nonsense.

There is no reason that there should be something rather than nothing at all. And vice versa.

Well, it is suspected that there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. This is an active area of exploration for theoretical cosmologists. What are you contributing?

And even assuming your assertion is correct, so what?

So Shut the front door a-h!

So, do you think you’ve proven something?

If so, could you state clearly:

1. What you think you have proven; and
2. How exactly your statements prove what you think is proven.

In addition to Neil’s statements in #136, logic demands that atheism be the starting point.

Even assuming the evidence against the existence of god to be merely circumstantial, in the absence of any evidence for the existence of god, Occam’s Razor, or the principle of parsimony, require that one does not assume the existence of something without evidence that the thing really does exist.

Thus, the purely logical position is atheism, i.e. that one assumes there is no god until evidence comes to light to decide the issue. Agnosticism grants too much credence to the power of coincidence and the susceptibility of the human mind to see agency in the universe where (probably) none exists.

All religious beliefs, by violating the principle of parsimony, are illogical.

To draw an analogy, if I were to claim that there exists in my back garden an invisible pink unicorn, would it be more logical to assume that such a thing does not exist until I can provide evidence (such as some unicorn poo, for instance), or to sit on the fence and grant equal credence to both my claim and the likelihood of the unicorn’s not existing?

Nigel, many things can be refuted but surely you are not implying that there are many many atheists in foxholes? Again, I do not see how it can be confirmed either way.

As I stated above, all it would take is one atheist to refute the statement.

However, to test the claim, all one need do is interview combat vets and find one or more atheists whose views were not changed by being under fire.

However, demonstrating its validity in a positive way is impossible, because no matter how many pre-combat atheists whose original views have been changed by being under fire, you can never be sure whether or not you have interviewed a sufficently representative sample of the combat vet population. After all, because the statement is so total, all it would take is one atheist remaining atheist while under fire to refute the claim.