Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:33 pm

seeds wrote: However, I don’t think that Kant would have a problem visualizing how well the word correlates with the hidden (yet verified) underpinning of the objective structures of the universe where the “thing-in-itself” resides in the infinitesimal articulations of information written in the invisible script of quantum waveforms.
Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:41 am
Given his reasoning I think he'd have a serious problem with such a claim about the Noumena.
I suppose we’re getting a bit off-topic here, but according to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: In metaphysics, the noumenon...is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses. Modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation.
And Dictionary.com defines a noumenon as being:
Dictionary.com wrote: 1. the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.

2. a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.

3. Kantianism. something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, nonsensuous intuition.
The quantum waves represented in Schrödinger’s mathematical formula...

(and especially in the double slit experiment where the waves are propagating in the interim area that exists between the double slitted wall and that of the screen)

...can only be perceived via the intellect and never directly with the senses.

Indeed, any attempt to view the waving, noumenal-like underpinning of reality only elicits the manifestation of some form of phenomenal presentation of what the sensory inaccessible waves represent.

In other words, we cannot literally see, feel, hear, taste, or smell quantum waves; we can only infer their existence.

And in that way, the quantum bears a resemblance to Kant’s noumenon which, again, is...
Dictionary.com wrote: ...something that can be the object only of a purely intellectual, nonsensuous intuition.
_______

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10657
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 am

How do you know 'it' is waves?

uwot
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by uwot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
So you are an atheist, that believes there are possible degrees for the existence of God(s)?
For all I know, some god does exist, but as an atheist, I don't believe it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
However this "evidence" does not reflect strongly with your personal axioms as to why "God(s) do not exist"?
I don't have any such axioms, but I can tell you why I think the arguments for god are unsound. Which, to be clear, is not the same as wrong.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:04 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
So you are an atheist, that believes there are possible degrees for the existence of God(s)?
For all I know, some god does exist, but as an atheist, I don't believe it.

You believe some god may exist, but you don't believe he actually exists? If God(s) may possibly exist, must God(s) eventually exist otherwise it would be "impossible"?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:29 pm
However this "evidence" does not reflect strongly with your personal axioms as to why "God(s) do not exist"?
I don't have any such axioms, but I can tell you why I think the arguments for god are unsound. Which, to be clear, is not the same as wrong.

Agreed, but what arguments are those? I have to ask because the man who wrote the article, whatever his name is, didn't do a good job at all. I hoped for better from an "academic".

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:53 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:16 am
seeds wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm

That’s easy, uwot.

In order to not believe in God...
Etc, etc. Ok seeds; same question to you:
Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?
1. I believe that god does not exist.
2. I do not believe that god exists.
-1- wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:14 am
I am watching this argument unfold. I think you are both right, except your right-ness depends on two assumptions, unnamed, and that is why you are arguing.

Seeds assumes that an atheist has a knowledge of the physical world to the depth he described. BUT SEEDS DID NOT NAME THIS ASSUMPTION.
Unless you have some other “assumption” in mind (and if so, please explain), I clearly and unambiguously described what an atheist’s (unspoken/unnamed) assumption must be.

In the complete absence of any form of guiding intelligence presiding over the universe, then the following (or some form of the following) must surely be the case...
seeds wrote: ...what an atheist “has to believe” (by default) is that blind and mindless processes have taken hold of the fabric of reality and somehow managed to fashion it (like a potter’s hands) into a context of order that defies comprehension.

That without the slightest hint of teleological impetus, the noumenal underpinning of the universe (the quantum), not only managed to self-arrange its patterns of information in such a way that would eventually lead to the manifestation of an unthinkably stable setting upon which life (life?) could then effloresce into existence,...

...but also managed to blindly and fortuitously equip that setting with every possible ingredient necessary to enable and sustain the efflorescence throughout its journey to self-awareness.
I even went so far as to clarify what I meant by “default”:
seeds wrote: And by “default” I mean that both the hard and soft atheists – by reason of what atheism (in any context) means - must therefore hold an implicit (unspoken) belief in hardcore materialism that can simply be inferred.
Of course the chance-guided details of how the universe took-form could be different, but I’m not sure I can be much clearer in my description of what an atheist “must (implicitly) assume” if, indeed, the universe is founded upon serendipitous processes.
-1- wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:14 am
Uwot, on the other hand, ignored -- rightfully -- the unnamed assumption, and acted accordingly. He is absolutely right, the conclusion is false, if you ignore the (unnamed) assumption. Which uwot has the right to ignore, since it has not been stated.
Ignoring it does not make it go away.

Furthermore, the conclusion is neither false, nor was it not stated.
_______

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by seeds » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm

seeds wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:56 am
Right back at you, -1-.

And thank you for all of your kind words.
_______
-1- wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:44 am
Why can't I be open-minded? I actually am, but my open-mindedness gets lost in a sea of barrage up against the arguments of theists. I am open-minded inasmuch as I believe that everyone has the right to believe in god or to believe in no god.

This is a very strong misconception on this site, by other members, that I am not open-minded.

BUT FOR THE RECORD, HERE IT IS: I accept that it is possible that god exists; except I don't believe it does. I would accept the existence of god if its existence was proven. But no such proof exists.
What proof would you need?

Please provide a detailed description of the proof you require.
_______

jayjacobus
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:59 pm

There are those of us who sometimes think he cannot be but other times think He must be. And this is neither atheist nor theist nor agnostic but reasonable based on what we know and don't know.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Viveka » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:30 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:59 pm
There are those of us who sometimes think he cannot be but other times think He must be. And this is neither atheist nor theist nor agnostic but reasonable based on what we know and don't know.
If you're interested in Theism, I would recommend writings on Intelligent Design as by Michael Behe.

jayjacobus
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am

Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?

thedoc
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by thedoc » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am
Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?
Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution has been debunked in every case that has been investigated by science. Evolution has been demonstrated as the correct answer.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:36 am

thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am
Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?
Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution has been debunked in every case that has been investigated by science. Evolution has been demonstrated as the correct answer.
This is how the arguments go: Behe finds out that something is Irreducibly Complex(heretofore called IC). Then evolutionists say 'no way! it's this and this that COULD have happened and this and this being POSSIBLE means that IC is wrong.' Of course, they don't demonstrate intermediates in fossils or produce solid evidence, but just say 'well this and this means this, therefore Evolution COULD have done so.' In fact, they all create varying scenarios for a single demonstration of IC! Who's to say which scenario is correct without solid experimental or empirical evidence?

thedoc
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by thedoc » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:54 am

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:36 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am
jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:11 am
Intelligent design makes sense. Counter arguments also make sense. Who knows?
Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution has been debunked in every case that has been investigated by science. Evolution has been demonstrated as the correct answer.
This is how the arguments go: Behe finds out that something is Irreducibly Complex(heretofore called IC). Then evolutionists say 'no way! it's this and this that COULD have happened and this and this being POSSIBLE means that IC is wrong.' Of course, they don't demonstrate intermediates in fossils or produce solid evidence, but just say 'well this and this means this, therefore Evolution COULD have done so.' In fact, they all create varying scenarios for a single demonstration of IC! Who's to say which scenario is correct without solid experimental or empirical evidence?
Wrong, in every case that has been investigated, scientists have produced evidence and examples of the intermediate stages of evolution.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:02 am

thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:54 am
Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:36 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am


Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution has been debunked in every case that has been investigated by science. Evolution has been demonstrated as the correct answer.
This is how the arguments go: Behe finds out that something is Irreducibly Complex(heretofore called IC). Then evolutionists say 'no way! it's this and this that COULD have happened and this and this being POSSIBLE means that IC is wrong.' Of course, they don't demonstrate intermediates in fossils or produce solid evidence, but just say 'well this and this means this, therefore Evolution COULD have done so.' In fact, they all create varying scenarios for a single demonstration of IC! Who's to say which scenario is correct without solid experimental or empirical evidence?
Wrong, in every case that has been investigated, scientists have produced evidence and examples of the intermediate stages of evolution.
Even intermediates in IC topics such as in the coagulation cascade, or the rotary motor of bacterial flagellums, or the steps of photosynthesis?


User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by Theodore Drange

Post by -1- » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:49 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:53 pm

Unless you have some other “assumption” in mind (and if so, please explain), I clearly and unambiguously described what an atheist’s (unspoken/unnamed) assumption must be.
Yes, sorry, the assumption was that the atheist knows the facts of the universe, as described / was involved in the description by you in the "default". Some atheists, believe it or not, are not trained in physics, in philosophy. To be an atheist all they need to show is that they believe there is no god (or if you prefer, that they don't believe there is a god).

Beyond that, any attachment of any quality to an atheist can or cannot be valid, but is external to be an atheist, as such.

In the "by default must believe" is absolutely true, what you wrote, but it also has a pre-requisite, and that is what I figured what the unnamed assumption was: and that pre-requisite was knowledge and an ability to figure things out. You can assume these are qualities of an atheist, but they are not necessarily. The absolute by definition undeniable and only necessary quality of an atheist is to believe there is no god / to not believe in god.

In this sense, a piece of rock, a string of hair, the speed of light, and the PVT relationship in perfect gases are all atheists. Don't laugh, please, but go with the definition.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests