William wrote:
"That is the shared default position.
Q: What kind of atheist fits you best in relation to the subset positions?"
I have no "subset" position. I am an atheist in that I meet the definition of an atheist (lacks a belief in a god). Once again, it is literally that simple.
Therefore I can confidently say that while you identify as 'being an atheist' this in itself has no bearing on you position as an individual self conscious human being with opinions to express.
Your opinions expressed are not BECAUSE you self identify as an atheist. You self identifying as an atheist is besides the point in relation to your opinions.
"Perhaps it should have been called a 'unihorn' then?
If you don't care to do some research on it, then so be it. "
I know of the unicorn myths. Myth being the keyword. I don't care why one (of many) myths are retroactively reinterpreted to try and justify their inclusion.
Your opinion re unicorns has nothing to to with atheism.
"Q: Why, as a particular type of atheist, do you refuse to examine possible explanations regarding the mention of the unicorn, when the opportunity is afforded to you to do so? "
I am not interested in the special pleading arguments that are based on confirmation bias that lack evidence to substantiate them. Don't assume that because I didn't engage with your links, that I have never researched biblical myths.
Your opinion here has nothing to do with atheism. Your actions or none actions are irrelevant in regard to atheism.
"In relation to the idea of GOD, this for you, translates to 'a supernatural being' which is not how I 'see' the Idea of GOD.
So you are arguing with the wrong man in that regard as I don't claim that my idea of GOD is 'supernatural' - I do, however, acknowledge that something can appear to be the case, but consider such to be something which happens naturally which is altogether outside the parameters of past and present human ability to understand in relation to nature."
Argument from ignorance. Presuming that a god is using "natural" processes that we don't as yet understand, doesn't explain anything. It is another form of magical thinking. The very existence of a god requires supernature.
Again, this has nothing to do with atheism.
The idea of nature as we understand it, has no room for nor any need for a god.
This is not the atheist position. Lack of need in gods is not atheism.
"There may indeed be another universe which works in conjunction with this on, largely invisible to human senses."
No evidence of other universes either.
Besides the point I made.
Mathematically, there is a good case for the existence of multi universes. The math is still a work in progress.
"Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would those within that other universe see us as 'supernatural'? "
No evidence other universes exist.
Mathematically, there is a good case for the existence of multi universes. The math is still a work in progress.
I don't play "what-if" games like this one because they only tell us about the imagination and not reality.
Imagination is an aspect of reality and useful even in relation to scientific discovery.
Apart from that, imagination is not a problem of atheism.
"So we cannot assume that GOD can do whatever IT likes to do, within the parameters of any universe just to satisfy science and convince atheists. "
A god that is indistinguishable from fiction. If I wouldn't accept this argument for the existence of Gandalf, why would I accept if for a god?
Accepting any idea of GOD is not what atheism is about. Atheism is the lack of belief in ideas of GODs. That is all. Nothing more.
As such, atheists are not looking for any evidence or required to accept any evidence so therefore if you are indeed an atheist, you have no reason to ask for evidence of GOD on behalf of atheism.
As you stated:
I have no "subset" position. I am an atheist in that I meet the definition of an atheist (lacks a belief in a god). Once again, it is literally that simple.
"Did you notice that the opinion didn't actually become a "thing" until the process of recording it happened?
Yet, it existed before it became a "thing". "
Please explain how individual subjective thought can really be a thing before it is recorded. I am not arguing that before it is made into a thing, it didn't exist.
I am arguing that before it was made into a thing, it did indeed exist.
I didn't notice that because it isn't true. My opinion (as a thought) can exist in my mind prior to being recorded. So it didn't only become a "thing" after recorded. It became digestible by another sentient being after being recorded, but that wasn't the moment it existed.
We agree.
But even before recording it (writing it down), one can see evidence of the thought process. For instance, one could watch a person think via an MRI.
We agree.
But what you are alluding to is the limitation of the observer. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
If you took consciousness out of the universe, would the universe exist?
If a person thinks about something, does the thought exist even if they don't record it?
Yes and yes.
We agree.
But both are temporary occurrences in the universe of easily verifiable and observable phenomena. We can measure sound and we can record opinions and observe brain chemistry. If a god exists and interacts within or upon the universe, it must do so in a way that could be verified. Otherwise, it cannot be known that it ever acted upon or within the universe, making the assumption that it did so indistinguishable from fiction.
Obviously then, one is able to at least contemplate that the universe exists because of intelligent design, and in that, the evidence is there to poke and prod.
But is GOD also the thought voice in ones head? We agree that this exists independent of anyone recording it.
It is evident to the individual that this is the case.
Is the process therefore a matter of aligning the voice to the individuals preference?
For example, being conscientious allows for one to grapple with temptations, and the voice can act as a tempter or a counselor as the internal argument ensures and the individual makes a decision based upon personal preference.
The internal voice still essentially belongs to the individual as an aspect of the individuals overall consciousness but the voice also acts as a feedback system assisting and enabling the individual to come to a decision. Personal preference can act as a barrier to this process or as an enabler.
How are we to fully know that the internal voice is ONLY an aspect of our own consciousness or is working in conjunction with that, from some other source associated with GOD ideas?
We have personal power over it, and this can equate to ignoring it if it is in opposition with personal preference, especially if we want to succumb to the temptation. Eventually we can even silence that aspect of the internal voice altogether by becoming less and less conscientious.
"I think this is plainly incorrect Clownboat. "
I am not clownboat.
Sorry, my bad "TheBeardedDude"
And "form" means:
the visible shape or configuration of something (light isn't matter, so it can't have visible shape or configuration
Light is responsible for the existence of matter per science.
Perhaps "form" isn't the word you were looking for. For instance, thought doesn't have form either.
Again, whatever forms are created through human beings, started with thought. Without thought, humans cannot produce forms.
"Essentially light is information and given enough timespace it transforms into things and all those things are products of information.
Energy and light are the same. Energy is the manifestation of things - Lights way of...well...doing things "
This is what is incorrect. Light isn't information. Humans can use light to transmit information (fiber optic cables for instance). Light is energy. Thanks to Einstein, we know that energy and matter can be interchangeable, but that does not meant that they have similar properties (meaning that while matter can have form, that does not mean light can).
Matter is light in form. It is the result of light. Light is information, and without it, we could not be informed of anything.
For example, if you were in a universe full of light (or full of dark) then there is still information.
Why, because Consciousness exists as that which acknowledges - not only itself, but the information.
If there is no light, and only dark, then there is still information, so dark is also information, but it is also the absence of light, so it is absent the information which light is.
When the information of light becomes form, it manifests as the information in formation.
Science of course explains how light creates form.
"They [dark energy and dark matter] are things because they have mass."
I don't know that this statement is true about either dark energy or dark matter. They can interact with light, but as far as I am aware, we don't know that either have mass.
Well okay. I didn't run and look it up myself.
I had the notion that they were not just mathematical predictions but were observable due to their effect on other objects in the universe.
IF
That is the case
THEN
They must have mass, and are (as far as we can presently tell) without light.
"At that rate they represent things which are able to extinguish all light from there mass (what they are - there structure - as far as we can tell anyhoo) and this could represent the sum total of all information from light having perhaps created its masterpiece in those sections of the universe where they exist as things. - the ultimate end product of the data of light. Light has done its job in those departments. "
I have no idea what you are talking about.
That's alright. I was flying in my imagination.
Light is energy. It isn't "information" nor is it doing "its job." You are anthropomorphizing light to an extreme.
Well I don't know that light isn't conscious and even if it were the case, how would anyone go about proving it?
Bit certainly it is indeed INFORMATION.
(Without it, you could not read my words, as one example.)
"It isn't a question of me not liking it Clownboat. It is a question of why it should not be liked. "
I am still not clownboat.
I apologized already, can we move on now oh Bearded one?
"I gave examples as to why it should not be accepted as true argument, but rejected as fallacy (false argument) "
No, you didn't. You gave a poor attempt at dismissal based on misunderstanding what was being said and implied.
[citation needed] (Don't make the claim without backing it up with explanation.) You have obviously quoted me out of context and thus I am unclear as to what you are replying to.
"As explained Clownboat, the argument you are using is shown to be false"
Still not clownboat.
As I explained to you, the argument you are using is shown to be false
"1: In this universe, it is mathematically feasible that unicorns (as in the form of a horse with a horn growing out of the middle of its forehead) likely do exist."
It is possible an as yet discovered species of animal (fossil or extant) exists, of course. But that has NEVER been what I have been talking about. I am talking about the MAGICAL and SUPERNATURAL unicorn (as claimed to exist in a variety of myths, like the bible).
As explained, claims of a supernatural GOD is something I am not arguing. Go argue that with those who are making such claims.
As explained, individuals interpret the bible as they will. Even if the majority believe that the biblical idea of GOD is 'supernatural' does not mean that this is the case.
As explained, (and as I provided the link for you to have a look into but you refused to do so) some interpret the use of the word unicorn to mean the variety of rino which has one horn. If that is the case, then using that as a metaphor for 'The LORDS strength' is easily enough understood for that, without invoking any sort of 'supernatural' into the metaphor.
"Thus 'unicorns most likely exist in this universe'."
No, this isn't true even assuming we are only talking about a horned horse. It would be correct to say that: "a horned horse-like animal may be possible to exist, or it may be possible that one once existed." You can't say "most likely" when all you have is an assumption about possibility when it references a specific scenario.
The specific scenario would be the universe itself and the math alone allows for one to conclude that yes, it is most likely that a single horned animal resembling a horse does indeed exist somewhere in the universe.
For instance, is it possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Yes, it is possible because we know of at least one planet that can sustain life.
Agreed.
Does that mean it is most likely that life exists in our solar system (not counting Earth)? No, we don't know what is more or less likely in our solar system. This is why when searching for habitable planets elsewhere in the solar system, we look for those most similar to Earth.
You do realize how almightily BIG the universe is do you not? I don;t get the point you are trying to make there, BeardedDude.
"The idea of GOD as being a formless self aware consciousness, is another kettle of fish.
The analogies therefore do not align and thus the demand for burden of proof is a false one.
Burden of proof is not required. "
Baloney special pleading. If you claim something exists, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate it.
First you will have to establish WHY the idea of GOD is a question of science rather than of philosophy.
If you can do this in a logical fashion, I can then get a better understanding as to why you feel this is necessary BeardedDude.
In the mean time, it is appropriate that I at least give you a link where you can get an idea about my personal understanding of the idea of GOD. It isn't really a 'claim the GOD exists mind you, so if that is what you are looking for in relation to 'bruden of proof', I donlt 'fit; the critiria anyway...but you are free to investigate for yourself to see if indeed I AM making any claim therein. Here is the link;
[linky]
Also here is a link where I explain why 'burden of proof' is a fallacy in relation to my idea of GOD.
[linky]
"The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy and in that Burden of Truth is what is looked for in regard to evidence. The mind of the matter.
BoT rather than BoP. "
In order to show something is true (when it comes to something existing), it must be shown to exist.
This is in relation to science yes.
You can't make truth claims about something while simultaneously saying it is real without first showing it is real.
Philosophically - yes indeed - this can be done. That is why the subject of GOD is a question of philosophy not of science.
We can argue about what is or isn't true about Gandalf inside the Lord of the Rings universe.
In this universe the subject of GOD is not the same as the subject of Gandalf.
For example, we know what Gandalf looks like.
We do not know what GOD looks like.
Therefore, using Gandalf inside the Lord of the Rings universe is not an suitable analogy, because it is not even remotely the same thing.
It is a false analogy for that.
Therefore we can make true and false statements about Gandalf. But making true statements about Gandalf, does not make Gandalf real or possible to exist in reality.
In order for Gandalf to be discussed, something about Gandalf must be made avaiable to us.
We know at least that Gandalf is a fictional character. We do not know that GOD is even an individual in a form, let alone whether GOD is a fictional thing.
First off, one has to define 'what GOD is' and then one can decide if by the definition, GOD can be observed through scientific method.
Normally the idea of GOD is philosophical in nature and interacts with the individual subjective experience under certain favorable conditions of which the individual has influence over...yes - in that light, GOD is a philosophical subject, rather than something science can poke and prod at.
I gave a scant definition here
[linky]
From the link:
"Far as I am concerned, human beings are GOD in form, making it up as we go along and finding ways to overcome obstacles the physical universe puts in our way.
It is how I would expect a GOD in human form to behave. "
This is not to say that I think GOD
only exists within human consciousness, (as my other links explain) but is only focused on what can be observed through human beings, obviously related to the external world which can be measured by scientific means.
"Untrue! The individual can indeed know something of the nature of their idea of GOD through that subjective interaction. "
They can BELIEVE they know something about their god, but that doesn't mean that what they "know" about their god is true.
That would depend entirely on the nature of their experience in congruity. Certainly their experiences give them opportunity to learn to know.
I can agree though that they can and likely would get a few things 'wrong' but if they preserver there is no reason why their belief cannot transform into knowledge.
Specifically though I was pointing out the subjective nature of the process, which points to GOD (and personal subjective experience) being the domain of philosophy rather than - as you continue to argue, the domain of science.
I can know all sorts of things about Gandalf and write fan-fiction so that I can have subjective experiences with Gandalf. That doesn't make him real.
As pointed out, the analogy is false. I appreciate that you BELIEVE it is true, but it is false.
Good luck trying to persuade theists with such false analogy Bearded One. Perhaps think about adapting your approach to better suit truthfulness.
I see there is more, but I have other things to do. I haven't read your replies past this point. I might continue with this, or just leave things as they are at present.
Thanks for your feedback.