I’d like to point out that opinion number two (2) was held by two of you already
And
I do not believe that claim.
3 Likes
Its only complex to the extent that humans saw an opportunity to gain power over their compatriots and set themselves up as interpreters. Whether they derived meaning from bones cast on a dirt floor, peering into a bowl of water or moaning and thrashing around on the floor it was nothing more than performance art.
Why not?
(BTW I was just showing that I can describe what I mean by god without using the word. Furthermore, I suspect you understood me, even though I didn’t say I called this god)
That might be!
On a less pessimistic note, composition/decomposition is also just the way we understand the world. For example we think of triangles as possessing parts and really distinct attributes. So in a sense, it’s a natural mistake to think of god as complex, I would say.
NB Here “complex” is opposed to “simple” but not to “easy to understand.”
Because you’ve not presented anything to demonstrate your claim as true.
2 Likes
@CyberLN Do you think the claim is false? Or are you unsure?
Also, how did you interpret “first cause of all being” ?
(My last legal post for today 
)
I meant precisely what I said.
That anything that exists/ed has a first cause.
And as a byproduct, a control mechanism.
Yep down thru the ages and into the present time.
-
It doesn’t matter if the Big Bang cosmology was developed by an atheist or a theist. As an example, consider that Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the importance of hand washing in preventing the spread of disease . . . and he believed that it was “cadaverous particles”–adhering to the doctor’s hands–which caused disease. This was wrong, but him being wrong about the mechanism didn’t diminish the effectiveness of handwashing.
-
There is a historical conflict between the consequences of science and the consequences of religion. I often point to the Brescia church explosion as an example of Biblical literalism killing 2,000 people and destroying almost 20% of a town . . . and I could just as easily talk about the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses dying from want of a blood transfusion.
-
God–in order to keep track of everything possible in the Universe should–in my mind–be at least as (and probably much more) complex than the entire Universe.
-
If you have a way to demonstrate God’s existence that is rigorous, then I’m all ears . . . but I caution you that I’ve spent a lot of time in this forum, and I am very familiar with the same “proofs” that keep getting displayed by religious apologists with a nauseating regularity.
And just so you know, I am open-minded toward the idea that God exists . . . but not so open-minded that my brains fall out.
I look forward to exploring your points.
2 Likes
Friedmann was first not Lemaître (the priest), not that it matters. Also your notion that it took the scientific community a century to come around to this idea is ludicrous.
eta: It took more like 50 years, because that is how long it took to find evidence for the predictions of the theory. After that it was quickly adopted by the scientific community.
5 Likes
And yet you present this as an erroneous opinion:
If he isn’t complex then why can’t he be explained in simple terms?
I would really be interested in your evidence for god. Nothing else really matters to me personally as an atheist. If you don’t have evidence then none of the opinions you listed matter one way or the other.
5 Likes
-
Big Bang cosmology was invented by a News Paper Reporter who did not want to call the theory called, ‘The Primeval Atom Hypothesis’ because the readers would not understand what in the hell he was talking about. The whole idea of a Big Bang was a fabrication invented by a newspaper reporter who apparently had no understanding at all of Fr. Georges Lemaître’s findings. And, then the world was thrown into darkness as laypeople tried to figure out what caused the ‘bang’ and why it wasn’t slowing down.
-
There is no conflict at all between science and religion. Religions make claims and science asks them for evidence. When the evidence is not forthcoming the null hypothesis can not be rejected. The only conflict occurs in the mind of the religious, who insist their perspectives be true absent support for their perspectives.
-
(See #2)
-
(See #2)
-
(See #2)
3 Likes
No, you are making a common, and probably deliberate, error here. Either it is a straw-man or a lack of understanding of the difference between not believing in something and believing in the non-existence of that something, which reeks of a shifting of the burden of proof.
The concept of a god as has been claimed Ad nauseum, is incoherent. Therefore, complexity is merely hypothetical and imaginary. The homework has not been handed in.
One should refrain from attempting to assign attributes or characteristics to that which has not remotely been demonstrated to exist.
6 Likes
This is true…
That’s an unevidenced assumption…
Indeed, but one is a method designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible, and the other to laud it (religious faith) as a virtue.
Professor Dawkins is an atheist of course, so I assume you mean Piers Morgan holds a subjective belief that the deity he imagines to be real is complex? PrRD is simply examining god claims theists make, complex or otherwise.
Which god? I am not aware that any deity has been demonstrated (objectively) to exist at all? Please do so if you think you can.
Or the Koran, or any of the other innumerable religious texts that make subjective claims about various deities.
None of the god claims I have encountered have any explanatory powers, they are appeals to mystery, and the existence of the earth (assuming this is what you mean) neither needs nor evidences any deity.
Now since you have come to an atheist debate forum, I am obliged to ask what I always ask visiting theists and religious apologists…
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible?
Oh and welcome to AR.
One cannot rationally make claims about the nature of something until one has objectively evidenced it exists, or is even possible, one might as well argue as to whether mermaids have scales…or are slippery.
His main reason for not believing in any deity is the dearth of objective evidence, I would agree however that “god did it” claims, have no explanatory powers whatsoever.
What’s your point? This merely underlines that science follows the evidence, and unlike religions which cling to subjective beliefs no matter what, science must always be ready to admit any error, exactly as @CyberLN asserted.
Straw man fallacy, you are the one claiming a deity exists, and you brought that claim here to an atheist forum, do you imagine you’re the first religious apologist to come here creating such straw men, in an attempt to deflect from your burden of proof, and project it onto such straw men?
Then evidence this claim please…as I am dubious you know what most atheists think, then explain why it is remotely relevant to your claim a deity exists? FYI I could care less what your or anyone else’s concept of a deity is, I only care whether they can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support their belief, as that is my criteria for credulity.
Even were this true, it gets another “so what?”, and of course since atheism is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, having a concept of a deity (beyond the subjective claims of theists) would be meaningless, a bit like have an accurate concept of a mermaid.
Please link this interview, and quote verbatim what you are asserting they agreed on, and explain why it relevant, and how it supports your assertion a deity exists.
Atheism makes no such claim, though some atheists do. Their claims don’t change the definition of atheism, and I am not responsible for what others claim, all atheists lack belief in any deity or deities, even the ones who go farther and make a claim no deity exists. I however do not make such a claim.
I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, so how can I possibly conceive a deity as complex or not? Your argument seems like a straw man, because rather than address an error in reasoning by an atheist, you are projecting it onto atheism, and thus onto all atheists.
By suspicion you mean your preconceived and erroneous prejudice of what an atheist is, but since you know @CyberLN is an atheist, your question is bizarre, you are the one claiming a deity (Christian?) exists, it is for you to accurately define what you mean by deity, not for those who don’t share that belief.
Isn’t it telling that apologists never open with the best most compelling reason they have to hold theistic belief, but rather offer these argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies that attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
What do you mean by mermaids, be specific, one assumes you don’t believe they exist. You do see how poorly reasoned an argument is that asserts X exists, the asks someone who withholds belief from your claim to define X for you?
Exactly so, since one can only believe a claim that is defined, and you have yet to do this for your claim. I have never encountered any concept of deity I believed was real outside of the imagination of the person claiming they believed it to be so, did you want me to invent some concept as straw man you can knock over? Why would I do that/ Do you believe in Wabadooks? One assumes (by your rationale) that you must since I invented the term, and you cannot therefore know anything about it until I offer a definition…again you are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Straw man.
It’s in any dictionary.
Word salad…
Quite the opposite I’d say, and why is complexity at relevant to your claim or arguments that a deity exists?
We? You mean you, it’s your claim a deity exists.
They use the word god, it’s for them to define what they mean, as would always be the case when some makes a claim. I am under no obligation to understand what they cannot or won’t explain, again do you believe Wabadooks are real? Please explain specifically why, and what you think they are?
These type of argumentum ad ignorantiam apologetics are particularly silly…
What a spectacularly stupid question?
Precisely…he believes X exists, has taken the time and trouble to come here to assert this, and wants to pretend we have to define a version of X he can respond to by saying “aha, that’s not what I mean when I say X”.
You can claim the moon is made of cream cheese if it makes you happy, what did you want to debate? In the meantime, please demonstrate some objective evidence to support your claim.
Despite using it twice you mean? Dear oh dear…or were you asserting what you described is not in fact a deity? This is hilarious…
Are you asserting the deity you imagine to be real is simple? Based on what objective evidence? You need to demonstrate a deity exists before you can reel of claims about its nature, or at the very least demonstrate it is even possible. You are using a very in vogue but irrational line in religious apologetics, that seems to think disbelief can exist as something independently of an asserted belief, rather than the fact that we all start by encountering concepts and ideas, and then decide whether or not believe them. Do you really imagine my lack of belief in any deity (atheism) is challenged by suggesting a concept of deity exists I have not considered, but ironically you have yet to offer beyond straw man claims, as if I can’t look the word god up in any dictionary?
Straw man again, look up the word atheism in a dictionary. It is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is not a claim, sure or otherwise.
I don’t, it’s your claim, you need to explain what you mean, then evidence why you believe it.
2 Likes
- I am dubious this is the case among atheists, but can only speak for myself, and though I am an atheist I have never expressed any such opinion, though there is objective evidence that atheism rises significantly among scientists, and even more so among elite bodies of scientists.
- This is not merely an opinion, since there is plenty of objective evidence to support this. The RCC for example has a long history of conflict with, and antipathy towards science. From arresting Galileo and submitting him to the Inquisition for heresy, to making false claims that condoms don’t spread HIV infection.
- I don’t believe this is a common opinion atheists hold, since atheists by definition don’t believe any deity exists, and so it is a rational contradiction they would hold any opinion about a deity’s characteristics, beyond rational inferences about how theists define the deities they imagine are real, for atheists this would merely be hypothetical arguments, as is undoubtedly the case with Professor Dawkins.
- If this is erroneous then please do “rigorously demonstrate” that any deity exists, I have never seen or even read any apologetics that could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or any rational argument for the same, so I am dubious about your claim.
- Again I am dubious this is an opinion atheists hold, since again it is a rational contradiction, can you demonstrate anything beyond bare assertions to support this claims?
I wonder if @TheMetrologist is ever coming back, or is this to be another drive by proselytising?
2 Likes
I feel I have to defend by way of clarification what I said. And deconvolve two achievements of Lemaitre. Though these remain snippets of a complex and fascinating story.
Yes, Friedman formulated the idea of an expanding universe first, but it seems that Lemaitre was unaware of this. It was before internet… What makes Lemaitre’s contribution so special however is that he had access to the astronomical data and was thus the first scientist to give empirical evidence to show that there was a linear relationship between the recessional velocity and distance of a galaxy (which Hubble again showed a couple years later). This made the model of an expanding universe no longer mere theory. Furthermore, Lemaitre, having a deep grasp of general relativity, also advanced the correct mechanism for this expansion (unlike Hubble): the expansion of space itself.
In 2018, the International Astronomical Union voted to rename the Hubble Law, the Hubble-Lemaitre law, in recognition of this achievement. (I should say that attributing this late recognition solely to prejudice would be unfair… Lemaitre himself chose not to take credit at one point, likely due to the superiority of Hubble’s later data.)
But this is not what makes Lemaitre “the father of the Big Bang.” A few years after the linear expansion paper, he proposed a theory (then mere theory, and not one that Friedman had proposed btw) that expansion implied a beginning and a point at which matter and space was so condensed that the laws of physics might not apply. This is what he called the Primeval Atom. This idea was repugnant to many atheist scientists who thought this smacked too much of god, and poked fun of it by calling it “Big Bang.” That is, until the cosmic wave background was finally observed and the theory was proven true.
(Sorry this is a bit long, but I hope it clarifies the story)