/lit/ - Literature

>>11314315
>he thinks his 4chan post will result in any serious progress in a centuries old philosophical debate currently being discussed by some of the smartest people in the world

>>11314315
>make a stronger argument
You mean not to take any sides and say both are retarded

>>11314315
>The universe coming from nothing and the universe being created by someone are two equivalently valid positions

This is incorrect. One of these statements requires more assumptions than the other.

The first simply requires the assumption that it's possible for something to come from nothing. The latter requires the assumption that there is an omnipotent being, that this being existed before the creation of the universe, and that this being is responsible for creating the universe. Three assumptions, each one more unfounded than the last.

>>11314315
Bernard Russell was the giant faggot.
>it makes sense to be agnostic
You are even worse though.

>>11314335
How is assuming reality contradicts cause and effect to create the universe more reasonable than assuming it was caused just like everything else is

>>11314337
just another catholic spreading the love their religion commands them to

>>11314341
You're not just assuming it was caused. Most scientists think SOMETHING caused the creation of the universe.

What you're doing is assuming that causality necessitates a sentient and all-powerful being to create what very well might have been caused by some previously unknown reactive phenomenon.

And either way, denying the inherent existence of causality is a valid (though unpopular) position to hold. Much more so than assuming the existence of a deity.

>>11314315
>burden of proof
what do secular rationalists mean by this?

>>11314315
The burden of proof is basically complete nonsense, which is not surprising considering the community by which it was first popularized (internet atheists).
Why is it a dumb thing? First of all, it's crystal clear that it's nothing but a tactic to avoid justifying one's own position: it's like the "agnostic atheist" thing, it's nonsense, agnostic atheists de facto believe there is no god.
Second point, but as important as the first, basically every statement that is a negation or an expression of doubt can be rephramed as a positive statement.
"God doesn't exist" is basically identical to "I believe that the universe is entirely material" (sure atheism doesn't necessarily imply materialism, but you know what I mean, I can fix any objection to this specific example so don't bother).
I don't believe in God = I believe there is insufficient evidence for believing in God.
Each of those is asserting something, each of those has a burden of proof as much as "I believe God exists"

>>11314390
nothing like zooming in on semantics until nothing means anything

>>11314394
None of what I wrote is about semantics, it's literally just the deconstruction of a sophism.

>>11314395
"i dont believe in a God" =/= i believe the universe is entirely material
i dont believe in either; we don't know
not believing in God is not the same as not believing in the possibility

>>11314402
I literally wrote
>(sure atheism doesn't necessarily imply materialism, but you know what I mean, I can fix any objection to this specific example so don't bother).
>not believing in God...
...is the same as believing that there is insufficient evidence for believing in God, which is a positive statement.
Again, I wrote that too.

Stop believing in this nonsense of a burden of proof. Everyone has a burden of proof, what you're trying to describe by saying that certain things have a burden of proof and others don't is that different hypothesis have different priors.

>>11314411
simply rewording something doesn't change it's nature
if i said there is no proof of a crime therefore you can't prove the suspect innocent you wouldn't respond that what I ACKSHUALLY mean is that there is insufficient evidence he is guilty which I must now prove
stop sophisizing

>>11314419
meant prove the suspect guilty my bad

>>11314419
>simply rewording something doesn't change it's nature
That's precisely my point. my rewording doesn't change anything about the nature of the statement, yet it clearly show that they are positive statements in need of evidence. Which means they were always positive statements in need of evidence and the original form was just obfuscating that.
Literally making my point for me.
And yes, saying that there is no proof a crime is equal to saying that there is insufficient evidence, which is something that I hope you justify in some argumentative fashion or else your position is just something you just felt like declaring. There is a reason as to why you think the evidence is insufficient such as: the evidence doesn't place the accused in the place of the murder, the motive doesn't make sense, the evidence isn't strong enough to reject rational and probably alternative, and so on and so forth.

>>11314423
this is incoherent

>>11314430
No, it's literally the opposite of incoherent, and your inability to argue your point betrays that.

>>11314432
oh to be clear I'm not the other guy I just wanted to point out that regardless of your opinion you're making the worst argument I've ever seen

>>11314435
>your inability to argue your point betrays that.

>>11314315
What if he said that the teapot created the universe? It's still the same basic idea.

Why do people assume the universe has to be created?

>>11314444
Checked.

Yeah I've heard this argument before.

>>11314324
I'm trying to clarify one specific line of argument. Philosophy is something we all do in introspection, yet you'd rather let everyone do the thinking for you.

>>11314325
You either can't read or your IQ is below 90, because that's the whole fucking point of the argument is that "not taking a side" isn't the default position.

>>11314335
>omnipotent being
Not necessarily, it could be whoever started the "simulation".

>>11314390
But how you laid out those two ideas are precisely what people mean when they call themselves "agnostic atheists" or "gnostic atheists":

"I don't believe in God" = agnostic atheism
"I believe that God doesn't exist" = gnostic atheism

This is completely irrelevant though. The question is whether agnostic atheism with regards to God makes sense as a default position of doubt.

Also don't be a dolt please, "internet atheists" didn't popularise the idea of burden of proof.

>>11314423
terrible post. i don't think you even understand the burden of proof. crime is falsifiable, e.g. if someone has an alibi they are cleared. the existence of god is not falsifiable. jesus christ go fucking read a book before talking about this shit.

>>11314443
No. God in this context is the abstract idea of a creator, the Teapot is that just that with added descriptions which are completely unnecessary.

>>11314504
It's hilarious that you think you're somehow insulting anyone, when that's the place you get your information from regarding religion. Pathetic projection.

>>11314540
One could argue that most religions provide descriptions of their gods but in the case of this argument you're right.

>>11314509
No, because that would make you a deist. If one were a true deist, this whole question would have folded onto itself, seeing it wouldn´t cause the rift that is felt by believers/non-believers.

>>11314658
I don't see how the same thinking doesn't apply here - we're talking about the existence of something which all definitions of "God" (religious and non-religious) have in common, i.e. that it created the universe.

>>11314832
They might have in common that God is a prime mover, but besides that agreement, all religions of the world divert. This is why for many God necessitates an omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, being. These qualities being inherent in their deity, they will not only have to prove or suggest in some way that a God created the universe but also what particular God and why it is that God.

>>11314852
Sorry but nothing you've said has any relevance to your initial claim that the burden of proof argument applies equally to God and the Teapot. Most people take causality as a given, so God is their logical conclusion. Anything else - it's appearance, intentions, actions etc. - are outside the scope of this question, so whether you're a deist or theist it doens't matter.

>>11314506
Not taking a side is a very good position if the only sides being offered are complete bollocks and a waste of my time.

>>11314908
lmao this guy just solved the universe. we've been wasting the last 3000 years when it was "complete bollocks" all along!

>>11314895
>Most people take causality as a given, so God is their logical conclusion. Anything else - it's appearance, intentions, actions etc. - are outside the scope of this question,
Then why call it God? You're just saying that a cause caused it.

>>11314921
Yes, that 'cause' is referred to as 'God' sometimes, but you can call it cause, entity, creator, prime mover, or personify it in the millions of ways it has been personified over the years, but in the context of ontological arguments, everything but the common characteristic of being the 'cause that caused it' are irrelevant.

>>11314346
>some previously unknown reactive phenomenon
Like a prime mover?

>>11314939
I feel like this is just some sort of semantic deception, in that you're trying to smuggle in other things that people mean when they say "God". If everything about the supposed "God" is irrelevant then call it something that isn't such a loaded term. Why else would you do that other than to create certain theological associations within people's minds?

>>11314531
>i don't think you even understand the burden of proof.
Yes I do, you're just mad because someone said bad things about your oh-so precious idea.
>the existence of god is not falsifiable
Falsifiability applies only to specific strands of hypothesis, more precisely, through a certain type of iterated hypotheses. It doesn't apply to theism per se.
>>11314521
The "burden of proof" as intended by internet atheists isn't a well-accepted concept in philosophy, so yes, it was popularized by them.
>agnostic atheism with regards to God makes sense as a default position of doubt.
There is no objective "default position" for anything. As I've already shown, "agnostic atheism" makes a positive claim about the state of evidence and arguments in favor/contra God. I don't see why that specific positive claim should be the default position.

>>11314949
>If everything about the supposed "God" is irrelevant then call it something that isn't such a loaded term
Because that's what has always been referred to as God. Prime mover is a synonym for God. Once shown that the prime mover exists, then there are other arguments to show what properties that God is likely to have.

>>11314949
Okay I apologise if the word God wasn't accurate enough for you. Let me rephrase. There are three propositions here

A the universe was created from nothing
B the universe was created by something
C the universe was created by something and it looks like a teapot

Someone in this thread (as well as many atheists) said that B and C can be equally dismissed by the "burden of proof" line of reasoning. Can you not see how this might be illogical? A and B can both be considered "default positions" because you can not reduce them to anything simpler. They are mutually exclusive - either A happened or B happened. C, on the other hand, contains assumptions which are plucked out of thin air.

>>11314963
>As I've already shown, "agnostic atheism" makes a positive claim about the state of evidence and arguments in favor/contra God.
You have not shown this. You simply stated it. Please tell us the steps you took to show that saying "I don't know x exists so I'll assume it doesn't until you show me some evidence for it" makes a positive claim about the state of evidence.

Be aware, anything you say, I can replace God for X, which would likely render your argument useless.

>>11314992
>You simply stated it
It seems to me that I already have but let's try again.
If your position is rationally grounded, saying that a certain problem is either unknowable or has no known solutions (agnosticism) is the same as saying that the amount of evidence and argumentation currently available on the subject isn't enough to make a rational agent prefer one over the other.

This is a positive statement that requires a defense. In fact, it requires the same amount of defense that "God doesn't exist" and "God does exist" require, since you too are required to analyze the available evidence in favor or against it and finally reach a certain conclusion (=solution uknown or unknowable).

>>11314968
That isn't generally what people mean when they say "God", and you know that. If you are using a more technical definition then just use a more technical term, since you already have one readily available that avoids this issue. But I take it you don't want to actually avoid the issue and would rather cause confusion since it lets you sneak in theological arguments.
>>11314988
I reject your set of propositions. Proposition B implies some sort of agency, that there is something "doing" the creating. This is the type of deliberately misleading semantics I am talking about. You say that the characteristics of the """God""" don't have any bearing but you smuggle them in anyway to deceive people.

>>11314315
>comparing a creator to a giant flying teapot
Brainlet Russell

>>11314390
This
>>11314402
>sure atheism doesn't necessarily imply materialism, but you know what I mean, I can fix any objection to this specific example so don't bother
Read the entire fucking post next time

>>11314315
I think people are thinking about this issue too directly, so let's solve the century

There exists such a proof, P, that proves X's existence to all whom read it. Therefore, the proof may or may not exist to us. Thus X may or may not exist, as the proof of X, P, does not to us. We therefore do not believe in X, we rather believe and or search for P. It then is concluded that P is the equivalent of X, and such the proof of X is the equivalent of P in absolute terms.

This also assumes that P is recognizable by humans, further difficulties

>>11315049
Basically, if P does not exist then X doesn't exist to us, but it may exist period. This explains missionaries and their fervor with saying that backwards countries haven't been shown god

>>11315034
>people
I don't mean the average moron, I mean philosophers in theistic traditions.

>default position for thousands of years is to believe in a creator/creators
>literally every human group believes humans were created by something
>atheists make the claim that there's no reason to believe this
>claim that theists have the burden of proof
Why are atheists so backwards?

>>11315071
There aren't any of those posting on this board. Even if they were the semantics would still be obscuring the discussion.

>>11315078
When talking about a philosophical matter, people should use philosophical language which includes terms that are only used in philosophy AND terms that are of common use but hold different meanings when used in philosophy.
God is among them

>>11315091
And I'm telling you that it deliberately clouds the issue when you have more technical terminology available that doesn't. I don't care how authoritative the person using the term is.

>>11315101
I don't see anyone who is being misled by the statement, not even you.

>>11315034
Would you prefer
>the universe did not come into being
>the universe did come into being
>the universe did come into being and includes the teapot

>>11315015
All you've said is that a posteriori statements require knowledge to accept, reject, or ignore, therefore being agnostic towards an a posteriori propsition requires the same defence as being in favour or against it.

This is correct by definition, but in practice, putting ALL a posteriori statements in the same category without allowing sub categories is useless, and it is exactly what Russell is trying to tell you.

>>11315073
>literally every human group believes humans were created by something
That's not accurate.

In the norse myths. The first man and woman Ask and Embla weren't created for example, they just happened to lie still next to a river, then the sons of Bor (Including Odin) made them alive. It is never mentioned that they made human beings, only that the gods gave our body life. The universe is likewise not created, but came from nothing (Ginnungagap) -- a giant void -- and the creation story unfolds through cause and effect. This story doesn't deny gods, but they didn't create the universe themselves, however they created our world (Midgard) through their deeds later on.

So, the Norse Gods are worthy of respect not because they created the universe, but because they are good, gave us a soul, life, breath, and created Midgard, a small part of the universe that we inhabit. The gods are part of the universe.

>>11315034
>Proposition B implies some sort of agency, that there is something "doing" the creating.

As opposed to what exactly? If you can think of two mutually exclusive propositions regarding the existence of universe that are not ambiguous and do not "smuggle" with them additional implications regarding the nature of X please let me know.

>>11315068
>>11315068
I flip a coin. It's in my hand. It's either heads or tails, but you can't see the coin, so you say "I don't know". That's an agnostic belief you hold due to lack of evidence or proof.

If I were to flip a coin and say it has turned into gold, you would say "I don't think so, it is still a regular coin". You're applying the burden of proof here: you're expecting some kind of evidence or proof instead of just assuming an agnostic position of "I don't know whether you're able to turn coins into gold".

You see the difference? In the first scenario, it has to be either heads or tails - it an event with two fundamental outcomes... in the second, you can quite simply dismiss the statement as false.

So while we can say there is no flying teapot in space, we can't say there is no creator, because creator vs no creator are two equally valid outcomes and we have no evidence for either.

The only belief that makes sense is agnosticism, but practically speaking, it's atheism.

>>11315073
>duuur even though we're getting more and more intelligent every millennium and evolution is allowing us to develop ideas, I'd rather listen to my primate ancestors

>>11315164
Just to add to this, some evolutionary biologists/psychologists have expressed the possibility that belief in god is pathological and has arisen out of adaptive necessity.

See "Darwin's Cathedral" for instance.

>>11315210
I am arguing that we merely are unaware of the proof for such a creator, thus justifying the need for proof concept

>>11315224
How big is their noses?

>>11314315
None of this has any bearing on the reality of God's existence. The mind only apprehends form, not substance. You could presumably construct a series of formal proofs that some thing does or does not exists, and the point is entirely irrelevant. This is why UG Krishnamurti declared "there is nothing to understand."

>>11314315
all atheists have to do to prove that God didn't create the universe is to show how the universe was created.
They can't, at least not yet.
Which means that theists AND atheists both rely on FAITH to justify their beliefs.

>>11315734
Cool apologetics talking point #651

>>11314943
something has to need to be before something else is (god is something)
A god needs to need-to-exist to exist.
that need of being could very well have created anything, like it supposedly "created" god
A prime mover like god has multiple qualities, the infinite probability of potential is one single thing (anything)

>>11314315
>giant flying teapot
analytic philosophy in a nutshell

>>11315879
and that's assuming anything imaginable could have been instead of what is,
it can be as simple as "possibility" happened and collapsed back into nothing an infinity of times in a infinitely small period of "time" before our reality banged into being, and in this reality there was no collapse.
The more horrifying idea: in a trillion-trillion-trillion-years our reality will also collapse, and it will just be one eternity among an infinity of becomings. Our entire universe's existence just an undetectable sparkle within true-eternity.

>>11315073
Do we know of any peoples who never believed in ghosts? If not, can I assume that you do as well?

>>11315879
>A god needs to need-to-exist to exist
Well no, sort of one of the perks of being God is immunity from this sort of thing
>>11315948
This just kicks the can down the road. Why were there possibilities instead of no possibilities, and if there's a wider universe outside our own, the same rules apply

>>11315935
5/10
Produced a light chuckle in me

>>11315155
>putting ALL a posteriori statements in the same category without allowing sub categories is useless,
Not only I agree, I've already said so in another post. But the subcategories aren't "burden of proof vs not", they're "stronger or weaker priors".

>>11314346
>And either way, denying the inherent existence of causality is a valid (though unpopular) position to hold. Much more so than assuming the existence of a deity.

>Denying the basis of all our knowledge and basic logic is a more valid position to hold than to assume the universe had an intelligent cause
I don't even know what to say to you, dude.

>>11315034
>I reject your set of propositions. Proposition B implies some sort of agency, that there is something "doing" the creating.
I reject your proposition. You imply that something can come about without a cause, and that the idea of a cause is somehow so outlandish that it can not be entertained.

>>11316621
Causality not existing just strengthens the case for God. If things aren't happening because of observable cause and effect then why do things happen? Maybe God really is making the sun rise

>>11314315
>The universe coming from nothing and the universe being created by someone are two equivalently valid positions
No, they are the same position. If all that exists is Someone, that Someone is the universe. The Someone can then create some subset of the universe, and the universe now consists of Someone and Someone's creation. That Someone still came from nothing.

>>11315215
>>11316174
the point isn't "does the supernatural exist," it's "are claims of the supernatural sudden impositions that must be backed up with truth like the flying teapot." They're not, they've got millennia of history and the burden of proof does not lie with them but on those who make the novel claim that they don't exist.

And I don't believe ghosts don't exist. The burden of proof lies on whoever claims they don't. I'm not too concerned about ghosts, I don't expect to encounter any, but I don't assume they don't exist simply because I haven't.

>>11314315
>The universe coming from nothing and the universe being created by someone are two equivalently valid positions
If I were to suggest that the universe was created inside a teapot...

>>11314315
Brainlet Russell

>>11314390
>Mathematician A: [Mathematical conjecture] is certainly true.
>Mathematician B: Oh? Has it been proved?
>Mathematician A: Are you saying it's false?
>Mathematician B: What? I'm just asking for proof.
>Mathematician A: You're trying to avoid justifying your position.
>Mathematician B: My position is that it could be true, but as far as I know, it hasn't been proved one way or the other. But I never said it was false.
>Mathematician A: You never reference it in your papers. Seems like you de facto believe it's not true.
>Mathematician B: Do you have proof or not? You're the only one making a statement about the truth-value of this conjecture.
>Mathematician A: Let me put it this way. Do you believe there is sufficient evidence to treat this conjecture as true?
>Mathematician B: Since it hasn't been proved before, and at this point I'm seriously doubting that you have a proof, no.
>Mathematician A: Aha! So you are making a positive claim.
>Mathematician B: Yes, but the claim that there's insufficient evidence to believe something is much weaker than the claim that it's false.

>>11317019
A mathematical conjecture is falsifiable though, existence of God isn't. This makes it even easier to dismiss the idea of God, because one could at least try to prove the conjecture to be false.

>>11317059
A=A isnt falsifiable

>>11316671
Causality only applies within existence. If nothing exists, any action wouldn’t defy any laws since no law exists.

>>11317133
>If nothing exists, any action wouldn’t defy any laws since no law exists.
So is this in favor of God or against? Ignoring the laws of physics is his bag baby

>>11317101
Because it's a tautology.

>>11317149
Against. Non-existence is more necessary than existence, including God, so it should be assumed non-existence preceded existence. And since the laws of existence don’t apply to non-existence, there’s no reason why something can not come from nothing.

>>11314324
Who is to say it won't? Fedora faggot

>>11317159
God is outside existence though

>>11317175
So he doesn’t exist? Sounds like God is no different than non-existence.

>>11317180
God transcends the existing/non existing dichotomy. The rules don't apply to him

>>11314506
>You either can't read or your IQ is below 90, because that's the whole fucking point of the argument is that "not taking a side" isn't the default position.
What I'm saying is that you accomplish nothing by not taking a side. It's approaching an issue and deciding not to engage with it. That's not how humans have developed and cultures which haven't taken a side, which have instead decided against taking action, have been conquered and destroyed. Also, it doesn't elevate you to some intellectual superiority to not take a side, so go and suck Russell's wrinkly cock.

>>11314315

>>11314390
>>11315624
/thread
I don't see what's left to discuss.

>>11314315
>The flying teapot is not mutually exclusive to some other event
It is. Namely there not being a giant flying teapot.
>the non-belief in it is the default position
Same with G-d.

>>11317253
absolutely based

>>11314315
people that follow the enlightenment critique on religion fundamentally misunderstand what religion is. religion is a set of symbols which make explicable experience. the fault with the religious is not that they employ these symbols but that they take their pictorial content to be true, when it is as symbols that they are true. so even when the believer is absorbed into the pictorial content of the symbols and mistakes that content for its truth, it is the symbol working as symbol which allows for the pictorial content to be taken for that truth.

those that follow this critique against religion tend to take religion to be this picture content, which they uselessly attack, achieving nothing as the symbols as symbols remain as something which for the believers still make their own experience explicable to themselves.

>>11317253
W-woah

>>11317420
This

>>11317420
fuck off Jung

>>11317420
you're at least correct in so far as symbols are a form of representing a higher truth one is unable to put into words, but the problem of our time is precisely these images become implausible to modern man, who has discovered rationality, unless they can be expressed in a way which makes it compatible with that worldview. There's no going back to putting statues in your house and literally (as opposed to figuratively) believing that through them the gods are watching over you at this point, and that's a good thing.

>>11317843
>and that's a good thing

>>11317861
I'm not trash talking religion. Ideally, to future generations our notion of rationality should be primitive, since it hasn't integrated that spiritual side into itself, but it was a necessary step if we ever wanted to step out of the shadow of primitive religious mystification.

>>11317887
oh im too much of a brainlet to understand your post i just saw a meme and farmed my (You)
it seemed like a good post

>>11317420
t. Jordan Peterson

>>11319681
no gadamer you illiterate

There's no such thing as a china teapot in the first place.