Atheism's Offer

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have no reason to believe what is and is not required for the creation or the
beginning of the universe, period.

Correct. Therefore, using Occam's razor we should not assume anything.

You again are bringing God into the equation while I'm only talking about the reasons for your 'science', you just cannot let it alone can you?
Where did I say anything about God? I am fairly sure I haven't mentioned him or even implied him.

The beginning of the universe, you don't know how or why, yet
you have eliminated some causes and accepted others without really knowing how
it really started and why.
Just as you quite readily eliminate flying toasters and spaghetti monsters.

Your best and most honest statement could only really be you don't know how it happened, not, I know it didn't happen like that, whatever that is!
I see nothing wrong with saying "I know there are no flying toasters or spaghetti monsters." It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss certain explanations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct. Therefore, using Occam's razor we should not assume anything.

[b]You again are bringing God into the equation while I'm only talking about the reasons for your 'science', you just cannot let it alone can you?
Where did I say anything about God? I am fairly sure I haven't mentioned him or even implied him.

The beginning of the unive rs or spaghetti monsters." It is perfectly reasonable to dismiss certain explanations.

"Just as you quite readily eliminate flying toasters and spaghetti monsters."

[/b]I tell you, that you have no reason to know what is or is not required for the
creation or beginning of the universe and you bring in flying toasters and
spaghetti monsters implying faith in God. Again, without a reason to accept or
reject anything you have no idea what is or isn't the cause, so you do not have
any basis to claim knownledge on the requirements if creation or the beginning
required an author or a happy accident. You have your faith, you believe this
and you require someone prove you wrong, theist have the same thoughts on the
topic, but you think it is different as far as your beliefs are concern.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I tell you, that you have no reason to know what is or is not required for the
creation or beginning of the universe and you bring in flying toasters and
spaghetti monsters implying faith in God.

Once again, I have said nothing about God, nor implied anything about God. I am saying that when it comes to flying toasters and spaghetti monsters you seem quite happy with the principle of Occam Razor - and readily reject them, but when it comes to the start of the universe you claim that I am not justified in rejecting certain hypotheses that I see as just as unlikely or unreasonable or uncalled for as flying toasters or spaghetti monsters.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with God or whether or not you believe in Him.

Again, without a reason to accept or reject anything you have no idea what is or isn't the cause, so you do not have any basis to claim knownledge on the requirements if creation or the beginning required an author or a happy accident.
And again: unless there is reason to believe the requirement of an author, the happy accident remains the more reasonable hypothesis - just as the absence of flying toasters remains the more reasonable hypothesis regarding the vicinity of Mars.

You have your faith, you believe this and you require someone prove you wrong, theist have the same thoughts on the topic, but you think it is different as far as your beliefs are concern.
Kelly
I have no major objections to theists having thoughts on the topic. I object when they make the claim that such a hypothesis has scientific or logical backing. You implied that there was some universal rule of causation (within the universe) but so far have given no reasons whatsoever for thinking that to be the case. When it comes to the universe as a whole - it is a completely different thing - and again, you have given no reasons whatsoever for someone to even consider the possibility of a 'cause'. The whole concept of a 'cause' doesn't even make sense when talking about the universe as a whole.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, I have said nothing about God, nor implied anything about God. I am saying that when it comes to flying toasters and spaghetti monsters you seem quite happy with the principle of Occam Razor - and readily reject them, but when it comes to the start of the universe you claim that I am not justified in rejecting certain hypotheses that I see as ...[text shortened]... e concept of a 'cause' doesn't even make sense when talking about the universe as a whole.

Again, without a reason to accept or reject anything you have no idea what is or isn't the cause, so you do not have any basis to claim knownledge on the requirements if creation or the beginning required an author or a happy accident.

"And again: unless there is reason to believe the requirement of an author, the happy accident remains the more reasonable hypothesis - just as the absence of flying toasters remains the more reasonable hypothesis regarding the vicinity of Mars. "

There is no reason to accept anything or reject anything without a desire to when
it comes to that topic. You simply do not know, adding or leaving off any thought
about this has more to do with your beliefs than it does reason.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, without a reason to accept or reject anything you have no idea what is or isn't the cause, so you do not have any basis to claim knownledge on the requirements if creation or the beginning required an author or a happy accident.

I agree.

There is no reason to accept anything or reject anything without a desire to when
it comes to that topic. You simply do not know, adding or leaving off any thought
about this has more to do with your beliefs than it does reason.
Again, I more or less agree. It was you that kept claiming I was making assumptions, and you that claimed that there was reason to assume a creator. I simply claim that I know nothing and therefore do not assume a creator. The default position under Occam's Razor is to not assume a creator until there is a reason to do otherwise.
The problem is that you interpret this stance as assuming no creator - not quite the same thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree.

[b]There is no reason to accept anything or reject anything without a desire to when
it comes to that topic. You simply do not know, adding or leaving off any thought
about this has more to do with your beliefs than it does reason.
Again, I more or less agree. It was you that kept claiming I was making assumptions, and you that claimed ...[text shortened]... he problem is that you interpret this stance as assuming no creator - not quite the same thing.[/b]

If the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, and you don't know how
or why it is was done, you've no idea what is the simplest way to do it. Saying
that no creator was needed, again says that without one it is simplier, when in
fact you do not know that to be true. So you are only falling back on your way is
better with nothing to back that up other than your desire for it to be so.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, and you don't know how
or why it is was done, you've no idea what is the simplest way to do it. Saying
that no creator was needed, again says that without one it is simplier, when in
fact you do not know that to be true. So you are only falling back on your way is
better with nothing to back that up other than your desire for it to be so.
Kelly

Firstly, I have no desire for it to be so.
Secondly, the simplest explanation is the simplest explanation based on the information at our disposal. Nobody is claiming it is the simplest explanation based on all possible knowledge - that simply wouldn't make sense as you would then already know the correct answer.

And where have I said in this thread "no creator was needed"? You are so convinced you know my position that you are practicing mind reading. All I have claimed is that if we use Occam's Razor, we should not assume a creator until there is reason to believe there is one. This is not a claim that no creator is needed but rather a claim that a creator is not known to be needed nor even hinted at being needed.

There is a subtle but important difference between:
1. No creator is needed.
2. I see no need for a creator.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, and you don't know how
or why it is was done, you've no idea what is the simplest way to do it. Saying
that no creator was needed, again says that without one it is simplier, when in
fact you do not know that to be true. So you are only falling back on your way is
better with nothing to back that up other than your desire for it to be so.
Kelly

Saying that there is a creator doesn't, by far, make it the simplest explanation. It introduces a vast complexity where we will have to investigate and analyse this creator. It will have very complex properties to create such complex universe and beings.

Occam's Razor will be saying to give the simplest explanation based on all the evidence we have observed so far. We can only give the simplest explanation with what we know to be true. So to say, "when in fact you do not know that to be true" is a non sequitur.

If we were to find evidence of something supernatural which can only possibly be done by a creator (I do not consider the bible as evidence), then we can possibly say that the simplest explanation is a creator. Even then, it doesn't necessarily say that what caused that supernatural event was the same thing that created us.

Originally posted by lausey
Saying that there is a creator doesn't, by far, make it the simplest explanation. It introduces a vast complexity where we will have to investigate and analyse this creator. It will have very complex properties to create such complex universe and beings.

Occam's Razor will be saying to give the simplest explanation based on all the evidence we have observe ...[text shortened]... ecessarily say that what caused that supernatural event was the same thing that created us.

There are no "reasons" or "theories" and that includeds the Big Bang that even
addresses the beginning of the universe. So when someone says that they can do
without a creator for the beginning I have to ask why? There are no simple
explanations for all things coming into being with or without a Creator. You can
find plenty of theories that talk about current processes in place that are simply on
going, but something that addresses the beginning there are no offerings coming
from Athesim that I'm aware of anyway.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly, I have no desire for it to be so.
Secondly, the simplest explanation is the simplest explanation based on the information at our disposal. Nobody is claiming it is the simplest explanation based on all possible knowledge - that simply wouldn't make sense as you would then already know the correct answer.

And where have I said in this thread " ...[text shortened]... but important difference between:
1. No creator is needed.
2. I see no need for a creator.

So what cause do you offer for the beginning?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what cause do you offer for the beginning?
Kelly

I see no need for a cause. I will continue to see no need for a cause until there is reason to believe there is need for a cause.
So far I am not even convinced there is a beginning.

I believe the current observable universe with the structure we see, probably had a beginning just before the big bang. I have good reasons for believing that (the current expansion, the microwave background etc). But what I don't have is good reason to believe that was the beginning of everything, nor do I have good reason to believe it wasn't. So I leave the question open. But if there was a beginning to the universe then there was a beginning to time (as it is a property of the universe) and the concept of 'cause' would not apply to the universe as a whole.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see no need for a cause. I will continue to see no need for a cause until there is reason to believe there is need for a cause.
So far I am not even convinced there is a beginning.

I believe the current observable universe with the structure we see, probably had a beginning just before the big bang. I have good reasons for believing that (the curren ...[text shortened]... erty of the universe) and the concept of 'cause' would not apply to the universe as a whole.

Your not convinced there is a beginning, so everyone who dates the universe
is wrong?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your not convinced there is a beginning, so everyone who dates the universe
is wrong?
Kelly

Unless of course what they really mean is 'the currently observable universe', which is what most people mean when they put a date on the universe.
Of course it is quite possible (and at least hinted at) that the current visible universe starting at the big bang is all there ever was, in which case they could be correct.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Unless of course what they really mean is 'the currently observable universe', which is what most people mean when they put a date on the universe.
Of course it is quite possible (and at least hinted at) that the current visible universe starting at the big bang is all there ever was, in which case they could be correct.

If you are defining the universe as only the currently obsevable universe, than
how again did it start? If you are defining it as something more than currently
obsevable how can you reject anything including flying toasters from being a
cause? If you are saying that it never had a beginning, what is it about the
currently obsevable universe leads you to believe that is true over it having
a beginning?

I also have to question all dating methods period if you want to suggest that
they cannot tell us how old the universe is, since an eternal universe would not
have a date and if the dates changes from time to time, how many other reasons
are there that could also cause a date to change according to how we measure
them?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you are defining the universe as only the currently obsevable universe, than
how again did it start?

I have no idea.

If you are defining it as something more than currently obsevable how can you reject anything including flying toasters from being a cause?
I can't. I can only say with great certainty, that flying toasters are highly unlikely to have created the universe.

If you are saying that it never had a beginning, what is it about the
currently obsevable universe leads you to believe that is true over it having a beginning?
I am saying I don't know if it has a beginning.

I also have to question all dating methods period if you want to suggest that
they cannot tell us how old the universe is, since an eternal universe would not
have a date and if the dates changes from time to time, how many other reasons
are there that could also cause a date to change according to how we measure
them?
Kelly
I am really not following you here. What dating methods are you referring to? You say 'all dating methods period', yet you really don't seem to be talking about methods such as looking at a persons teeth to see how old they are (a valid dating method).
And what do you mean by 'if the dates changes from time to time'? Are you saying our dating methods change their results? Are you saying dates somehow morph into other dates?