Comments on: Re-Post: Atheism, the Wager, the Burden of Proof, and the Qualitative Leap http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:28:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Samuel Skinner http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-1824 Samuel Skinner Thu, 07 Aug 2008 04:44:53 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-1824 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. 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.

]]> By: Samuel Skinner http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-2506 Samuel Skinner Thu, 07 Aug 2008 04:44:53 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-2506 Thanks Drew- I'll simplify.<br><br>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. 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.

]]> By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-1805 Drew Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:50:00 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-1805 "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 <i>necessarily</i> 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. "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.

]]> By: dtatusko http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-2507 dtatusko Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:50:00 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-2507 "complex systems have multiple inventors"<br><br>The problem here is that it assumes that all material existence must have a source in an invention.<br><br>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.<br><br>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 <i>necessarily</i> unless you can also assume that the designer in question is also of material existence. The latter is absurd, the former is irrational.<br><br>The argument from invention fails. "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.

]]> By: VorJack http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-1804 VorJack Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:46:09 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-1804 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? 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?

]]> By: VorJack http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-2508 VorJack Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:46:09 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-2508 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>If I'm to make a leap of faith, I have to know which direction to leap in. Any suggestions? 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?

]]> By: Looney http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-1803 Looney Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:39:23 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-1803 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! 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!

]]> By: Looney http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-2509 Looney Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:39:23 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-2509 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! 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!

]]> By: Samuel Skinner http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-1802 Samuel Skinner Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:48:51 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-1802 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. 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.

]]> By: Samuel Skinner http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/07/30/re-post-atheism-the-wager-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-qualitative-leap/comment-page-1/#comment-2510 Samuel Skinner Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:48:51 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=434#comment-2510 Wiki doesn't have a designer. Capitalism doesn't have a designer. They are both emergent systems.<br><br>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.<br><br>Or, in short "god of the gaps" on your part. 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.

]]>