Paul Davies on an Ultimate Explanation Part 3/5

[rmeddy1]

Ah the old ,what is your reason for reason argument.

[croscream]

Human consciousness might be programmed to seek for consciousness in objects, modern man would consider to be unconscious. There is no doubt that studying a conscious and aware universe has done more to teach use about knowledge in relationship with the human condition, then looking at a dead and meaningless universe. In fact a child, and uncivilized human being is naturally religious, an escape then from religion into nontheism is a constructed faith, while theism and animism are natural faiths

[irishmauddib]

Your english is again terrible here but you seem to be saying that we are programmed for something. Do you mean by a programmer or do you just mean we have evolved to such a state that we appear programmed.

Maybe if you can explain this it would be clearer. However if you mean the first one then I am not interested as you have not shown there is a programmer. I am not interested in assumptions.

[croscream]

What the hell are you talking about man!!

[irishmauddib]

Again, english is not your first language clearly. If you cant understand me then you need to deal with that. Your english is terrible. Work on it and come back when you can understand more.

[croscream]

Do you just respond because you have to? I am just socialising, hoping to chat and you respond with nothing. No quotes from genetics, philosophy or culture studies? Just random responses about nothing. About something not being something. non, of your responses have any relationship with what i am writing. Are you a robot? Can you actually respond to what i write? are you able to study and remember and pull from your own memorysack an idea, something meaningfull?

[irishmauddib]

Yet again, english is not your first language clearly. If you cant understand me then you need to deal with that. Your english is terrible. Work on it and come back when you can understand more.

[croscream]

Am i talking to a machine?

[irishmauddib]

Again this is just trolling. I have no interest in trolls.

[croscream]

OMG!! you are a machine. I better contact muppet labs to see if one of there experiments got loose and travelled to Ireland.

[irishmauddib]

Again with the trolling. Try harder.

[croscream]

Autistobot tries very hard to control his hatred, but he can't control himself whenever he is able to vote someone down. WAHAHAHAHA!!!

[irishmauddib]

Still trolling, still not points made. Next.

[croscream]

Are you a compulsive neurotic?

Autistic and robot = autobot. Your an autobot.

What if i keep responding to everything you write down? Will you then feel the uncontrolable urge to continuously respond to everything i say. Hahaha, that would be funny.

PS: only a nerd would use the word trolling on youtube.

[irishmauddib]

Again trolling. Again no actual points. Next.

[croscream]

carrots?

[irishmauddib]

Still no point made. Next.

[croscream]

potato!

[irishmauddib]

Still cant make a point can you. Next.

[croscream]

beef.

[irishmauddib]

Nope still no point, next.

[croscream]

bit, count, dot, fleck, flyspeck, full stop, iota, mark, minim, mite, mote, notch, particle, period, scrap, stop, tittle, trace

[irishmauddib]

You just cant do it can you, next.

[croscream]

Do what? I gave you a point. 18 points. You want one point? Oke, fleck.

[irishmauddib]

Still cant do it can you, try again, next.

[croscream]

Still cant do it can you, try again, next.

[croscream]

next

[irishmauddib]

Nope still no point, next.

[croscream]

Nope still no point, next.

[croscream]

Nope still no point, next.

[irishmauddib]

Still trolling, next. Im sure you can make a point if you try.

[croscream]

Still trolling, next. Im sure you can make a point if you try.

[irishmauddib]

Nope nothing here either. Keep trying.

[HazelCoral]

Dont make the troll cry mauddib. Well done on totally owning him. Ignorance will never win here.

[irishmauddib]

Thanks, these idiots think that being racist or trying to get a raise out of you makes them somehow clever. When they have no point to make they just act like children. Never give them the reaction they want is the key. Just sit back and wait for them to mature and make a real point.

[HazelCoral]

Here here! Well done. You owned this idiot.

[dpkms]

i have a really good point to make, your ugly

[irishmauddib]

Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted. Try again sometime when you have a real point to make.

[dpkms]

yes Mr. intelligent.

hey i have another point that rings true, did you know that people who who try and act really intelligent on youtube are usually 40 years old who still live with there Mum?

[irishmauddib]

Nope, no point here either, still waiting.

[leopodstanicky]

I believe in what I believe is right - GWB.

[milkmaestro]

Theism or Atheism both require faith.

[riversonthemoon]

Depends on how you are defining faith. In the usual sense of the term, atheism requires none.

[niinja2]

@riversonthemoon if atheism does not require faith, they you must have proof for nonexistence of god?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

Prove the non-existence of Russell's teapot. You can't? Is disbelief justifiable? One can invent an infinite amount of mutually incompatible unfalsifiable claims. Should they all be believed? Burden of proof?

Being an atheist does not mean you claim to have proven the absence of god. One can simply hold the position that in the absence of any evidence for a proposition, belief should be withheld. In the case of theism you are then without theism or in Greek: atheism.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

im not questioning the validity of belief or disbelief , but if you do not have proof , you have a certain belief or disbelief , an opinion that cannot be 100% proven. that is faith even if it is justifiable.

"Being an atheist does not mean you claim to have proven the absence of god"

if you dont have proof then you believe something. You either know or believe, or have disbelief in your case.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

"One can simply hold the position that in the absence of any evidence for a proposition, belief should be withheld"

that is agnosticism

let me rephrase that for you:

"One can simply hold the position that in the absence of any evidence for a proposition, opinion should be withheld"

or

"One can simply hold the position that in the absence of any evidence for a proposition, belief or disbelief should be withheld"

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

Sigh. There's a muddy pool of conflicting definitions, but I won't argue with you about those. I will only note that if you ignore the definition people use when describing their own beliefs, and then use a different definition to attack their beliefs, you are putting up a straw man. Pretty much everyone who claims to be an atheist agrees that they cannot prove there is no god. The only reason the word atheism is used in a different way is because it makes for a softer target.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

". In the case of theism you are then without theism or in Greek: atheism."

agnostics are also without theism...

to be without theism does not equal atheism because you have another choice.

But atheism is an opinion. And in the absence of evidence for god it is justifiable to believe that there is no god or to disbelieve in god. But this is still belief or very justifiable faith.

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

You either believe a claim, or not. If you think there is another option, you are confused. I can disbelieve a story without hearing it. I don't need to prove something false to disbelief it. Disbelief is simply the absence of belief -- in this case due to the absence of evidence. Disbelief requires no proof. It is simply the standard position to any claim you aren't convinced is true. Disbelief is not equal to the belief that the claim is false. That would require evidence.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

let me simply put it this way

Do you believe there is no god, yes or no?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

I don't believe there is a god. That is to say: I have never heard a convincing description, and thus have never believed one.

A stronger claim: I believe that a whole range of gods don't exist. I think a world of aids and childhood leukaemia at some point leaves little room for a good and all-powerful king, at least not without bending the rules of common sense and morality beyond breaking point.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

I attack your definition because you are not defining atheism but agnosticism. You either believe something is true, or you dont believe it, or you simply dont know. Yes , no and sustained , there are 3 options.

I think the origin of confusion is that you say that heaving no belief about something is the same as heaving negative belief about something. You call this disbelief. You can say i believe there is no god, its equivalent to i dont believe there is a god.

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

In philosophy, Agnosticism usually is the idea that a certain claim is fundamentally impossible to answer via human thought. Its association with a sort of neutrality is new, and I think, based on misunderstanding. One can be an agnostic and a fully believing Christian or a atheist.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

"One can be an agnostic and a fully believing Christian or a atheist."

So atheism does require faith or belief because you ultimately don't know?

I understand this , but generally the word agnostic is used in a different context. How would you describe a person that does not have a , belief or conviction about the existence of God?

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

In both cases you have a belief about the existence of god. You can suplement the word belief with the word thinking.

there are 3 cases:

1) I think Obama is a good president.

2) I dont think Obama is a good president.

which is the same as " i think Obama is not a good president". Both of these statements state the same thing, only one is negative "i dont think" and one is positive "i think". The fact that you say "i dont think" or "i dont believe" does not mean you ...

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

You first two sets are about belief, your third about knowledge........ (Words cannot describe what dots can).............

If I don't know Obama, I obviously don't think he is a good president, in fact, I don't think anything about his presidency. This does not mean I think he is not a good president. Not believing is not equal to claiming a claim is false.

No newborn baby believes Quantum electrodynamics, but newborn baby's also don't say it is false (I've yet to meet one).

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

"I obviously don't think he is a good president"

so if you know nothing about him you believe he is a bad president?

"Not believing is not equal to claiming a claim is false."

exactly , are you claiming that the claim "god exists" is false or you dont have a belief about it and please answer this question..

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

Let me be more precise. When I say "I don't think Obama is a good president" I mean that literally. Another way to state the same thing is: "I don't belong to the group of people who think Obama is a good president". One can belong to this group with respect to the existence of God without ever thinking about it. Do you get my point?

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

"When I say "I don't think Obama is a good president" I mean that literally"

so you think he is a bad president?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

I hope you are joking

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

"One can belong to this group with respect to the existence of God without ever thinking about i"

how can someone belong to a group that thinks obama is good or bad president if they dont think about this?

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

im heaving a problem of determining where do you put people who have neutral view , or even do you think that view can exist?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

What do you mean by neutral? People who say "I don't know"? I call them atheists, as they are without theism.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

this clarifies your view quite a bit.

would it be wrong to describe you as a person which believes there is no christian god?

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

this clarifies your view quite a bit.

would it be wrong to describe you as a person which believes there is no christian god?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

If you mean the one who is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, that would not be wrong.  What about you?

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

i can describe myself as theist , i think good is something similar to christian god but i have a problem with allpowerfull part. Im not asking because im interested in what you believe only in the way you phrase it.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

continued

that you dont have a belief or thought about whether Obama is a good president. You dont lack belief , opinion or thought, you only chose to state that opinion, thought or belief in a negative way --> "i dont believe"

3) i dont know whether Obama is a good president.

I personally dont believe there is a free will . That does not mean that i dont have any belief about free will, i have a strong belief that free will is bullshit and i can phrase it in 2 ways...

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

I dont believe there is free will , or

I believe there is no free will.

These statements are equivalent and in both cases i have a belief about free will the same way you have a belief or an opinion about the existence of god.

You are putting number 2 and 3 into the same category , which they are not.

Not heaving a belief is the same a heaving a non belief or disbelief as you say it, but its not the same as heaving negative belief because you have a belief of negative kind.

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

You are mistaking claims of belief with claims of knowledge. for example, if I don't know what free will is I fall in the first, but not the second category. The same for the gods, for some I have good reasons to say they don't exists, many are impossible to disprove, so I take the position of neither claiming that they exist or that they don't exist, placing them in the first, but not the second category.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

would it be wrong to describe you as a person who believes that there is no god?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

Like i said, that depends on the God we are talking about.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

wait a minute so you do think there is some kind of god?

[gr0mithtimon]

@niinja2

No, but I don't know all the possible god-ideas so I can't say they are all false. I can only say the ones I've seen seemed wholly unsubstantiated, and some were patently false, so I expect similar results in the future.

[niinja2]

@gr0mithtimon

Let me put it this way

the fact that you "don't believe" something is not the same as heaving no belief about something. Just as heaving an opinion about the existence of god is not the same as not heaving the opinion about the existence of god.

I would like you to answer to this question only with yes, no or i dont know. As you have said it you either believe or you dont.

Do you believe there is no god?

[irishmauddib]

Agreed, you need to define your terms. As it stands this comment is false.

[croscream]

What if the awareness of children that there doll is a real person is a kind of religious believe, then telling that person that the doll holds no personality would be another type of believe. It all depends who really believes; if we are programmed to create a religious like awareness for ourselves then any attempt to establish a scientific and agnostic way of looking at the world is a purposefully contstructed faith.

[irishmauddib]

I have no idea what you are saying, why you are directing it at me or what it has to do with anything sorry.

Your failing appears to be to think that you either have to believe X or believe its opposite Y. You are ignoring the scenario where a person simply sees no reason to believe X and so dismisses the theory until such time as there is. Its a subtle but important difference.

So no, the claim it requires faith to not believe in god is simply a false statement so far.

[croscream]

I will wait for a smart person, yes?

[croscream]

Do you train yourself to give ingnorant awnsers without any inherent value?

[irishmauddib]

And still with the insults. You can not make a point so you make insults. Not big. Not clever.

[irishmauddib]

Again not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to be insulting? Remember insults demean only the insulter.

[croscream]

Again not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to be insulting? Remember insults improve only the insulter.

[croscream]

Maybe both Christianity and Naturalism are very different from the inborn way we experience religion and reality, maybe this genetic, inborn believe system is closer to? Animism, or poetic paganism?

[irishmauddib]

Is english your first language? The grammar here simply is meaningless and I have no idea what you are saying.

[croscream]

It is clear that you do not have a basic knowledge of philosophy, otherwise you would try to use the linguistical constructs in my responses to awnser me.

[irishmauddib]

I am perfectly well versed in it. If you want people to respond to you like you expect then you should talk to yourself. This is the only way people will respond to you the way you want them to.

[croscream]

Are you stupid?

[irishmauddib]

Again I have no interest in your insults. If you have a point make it, if you do not then do not.

[croscream]

When i look at your account i see you are a lover of the pop music. Not the sign of an intelligent person.

[irishmauddib]

Ah and now you turn to ad hominem. You cant reply to what I say so you attack my character instead. Weak. Really weak.

[croscream]

Pigboy, why don't you create a response by using the same abstract constructs i use to describe my idea's?

[croscream]

Because, idiot! i was talking about biology, religion and metaphysics.

[irishmauddib]

Again when you can make a point without insults I will reply to it.

[irishmauddib]

Again this comment contains insults so I have nothing to reply to. When you make a point without insults I will reply to it.

[irishmauddib]

I think what you need to do is talk to people who speak your own language. Your english is poor here and so your ideas do not make any sense. This is not your fault or mine, it is just not your first language.

However, like I said, if you want to try and make a point without insults then I am happy to listen.

[croscream]

You don't understand me because you are Irish.

[croscream]

maybe the British where right about you?

[irishmauddib]

Again this is just trolling. I have no interest in trolls.

[irishmauddib]

Again you cannot make a point but when you do I am happy to listen. This is just trolling.