Notes From Off Center - Latest Comments in Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Samuel Skinner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:44:53 -0000

Thanks Drew- I'll simplify.

If you use the premise "all things need a designer" than what about God? If he doesn't need a designer than the premise is invalid and Occum forces you to choose the universe as the uncaused link.

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:50:00 -0000

"complex systems have multiple inventors"

The problem here is that it assumes that all material existence must have a source in an invention.

The logic here does not make sense. Just because human artifacts on the whole can find some source in "invention" does not mean that therefore everything that we perceive in material existence must therefore have an inventor. This would only make sense if God was of the same kind as all other material existence.

The problem here is that it is simply another way of terming the argument from causation and the end of this is not logical, it is arbitrary. There is no way to argue that if the premise A (that everything invention has an inventor) that premise B (that everything in material existence must therefore have an inventor) and have them both hold together necessarily unless you can also assume that the designer in question is also of material existence. The latter is absurd, the former is irrational.

The argument from invention fails.

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

VorJack — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:46:09 -0000

Exactly Looney! Just as all inventions have an inventor, complex systems have multiple inventors! Look at the complexity and variety in the universe! Look at how small a corner we occupy, and how much of the universe in beyond our comprehension! Polytheism is the only explanation that makes sense! I really don't see how you monotheists can reject the obvious. It makes the conversation rather difficult.

I'm joking, but not by much. If you decide to look for God(s) - whether because you've decided to open yourself and "choose the absurdity itself," or because you've convinced yourself with some cosmological proof - where do you go next? There are literally millions of different religions in existence. There are probably infinite possibilities for the nature of the divine, and most of them - like the universe itself - are beyond our ability to comprehend. That's part of the problem with Pascal's wager; even if you choose to believe, you might end up believing the wrong thing.

If I'm to make a leap of faith, I have to know which direction to leap in. Any suggestions?

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Looney — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:39:23 -0000

Samuel, good point. There were no intelligent designers who help with Wiki, and no entrepreneurs who helped with capitalism. No intelligent designs in Ph.d. dissertations, and the microprocessor was the result of random wave action on silicon sand crystals on the beaches of Santa Cruz. Intel is a myth. That is what evolution has proven to be a fact!

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Samuel Skinner — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:48:51 -0000

Wiki doesn't have a designer. Capitalism doesn't have a designer. They are both emergent systems.

So that is a flaw to "technologist" thinking- not all things that are made have a designer. And not all things that are designed have ONE designer. And not all things with one designer have a designer who toots their own horn.

Or, in short "god of the gaps" on your part.

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Looney — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:19:41 -0000

I have always understood that the Bible talked about faith and belief in terms of God's promises and the work that Jesus did on the cross, but God's existence was always a given. It is more like my relationship with my father. His existence is a given. His promises are what I treat with faith or skepticism based on my relationship.

Being a technologist, I proceed simply with the fact that all technology has a designer and there is no contradictory example. Life should also have a designer based on simple induction. This is a given in science and was always this way until theologians started contradicting in the 19th century. Atheists begin by rejecting the obvious, which makes the conversation difficult.

Re: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap

Samuel Skinner — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:12:05 -0000

Actually I don't accept Pascals Wager because it means I should accept the religion with the worse Hell. That would be... worship of the Choas Gods.

Or the Mayan ones. I hear there Hell is truely horrific.