2 of 2
2
Paul Kurtz’ Neo-Humanist Letter to the Atheists
Posted: 28 April 2010 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4625
Joined  2007-10-05
Write4U - 28 April 2010 10:14 AM

Yes, making claims is easy and that is why I keep introducing the concept in the hope that someone will come up with evidence to the contrary or, in my hopeful desire, come up with some supporting thoughts on the matter. The concept of Potential is not outrageous in scope and to me has several aspects which can be supported by science. I just lack the scientific skills to put them in mathematical language. But to ridicule without actually trying to understand my conception is not scientific either. I am not a wild eyed “savior” trying to convert. I am merely making a proposition which might help reconcile this seemingly unresolvable problem.
Can you do better??

There is nothing in your Potential paradigm to reject. You make no falsifiable hypothesis, offer no means of proving your idea wrong, then challenge others to prove it wrong. Worse, you offer nothing positive when you speak of Potential as if it is some grand unifying physical theory. What you have is a vague idea with no substance, no empirical evidence and no predictive powers. The burden of proof is on you, and you have none.

ok, scientists are trying to find the underlying simplicity in what appears to be an infinititely complicated universe. Better?

No, because from that it does not follow that atheists see the Universe and claim no intelligence could have created it. As I said, atheists see no evidence of a creator and no need for a creator. That is far different than claiming “no intelligence could have created the universe.”

I believe that most scientists agree that there was a beginning and that by definition is a creative process.

I know of no scientific theory which makes that claim, not even the Big Bang Theory. We have no evidence of what preceded the Big Bang, therefore can make no claims of whether the Universe began 13.7 billion years ago or existed infinitely long before that then.

I believe my Potential paradigm is as valid as any in any discussion on this subject. To threaten me with censure is not productive and smacks more of the tactics employed by the dogmatics than a reasoned rejection, which I am still awaiting.

If you want your Potential paradigm to achieve validity then you need to provide some evidence and a solid theory including explanations of things science cannot currently explain; until then you contribute nothing to our understanding of the Universe, you are only making noise. Further, I made no threat. I am not a moderator here, I was only expressing my opinion that your constant posts about Potential could be construed as a violation of the forum rules, specifically “(h) Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.” (emphasis added)

[ Edited: 28 April 2010 10:53 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
Write4U - 28 April 2010 10:14 AM

I believe my Potential paradigm is as valid as any in any discussion on this subject.

I see nothing here. Sounds like armchair philosophy to me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
Write4U - 28 April 2010 09:00 AM

I am constantly amazed at the dogmatic stance on both sides. ....Atheists claim there is no God. .....

I think the position can be stately more cordially that the standard religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientiology) are cognitively implausible.  Is there a particular religion you think is an exception?  As Darron noted—“religion” is stuck in the corners where science has not yet shown a light, where unfalsifiable claims can be still be made.

Worrying about the creation of the universe suggests that you also find the nuts and bolts of Christianity/Islam/Mormonism/Scientology etc. to be flawed and self-contradictory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Jackson - 28 April 2010 04:37 PM
Write4U - 28 April 2010 09:00 AM

I am constantly amazed at the dogmatic stance on both sides. ....Atheists claim there is no God. .....

I think the position can be stated more cordially that the standard religions (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientiology) are cognitively implausible.  Is there a particular religion you think is an exception?  As Darron noted—“religion” is stuck in the corners where science has not yet shown a light, where unfalsifiable claims can be still be made.

Worrying about the creation of the universe suggests that you also find the nuts and bolts of Christianity/Islam/Mormonism/Scientology etc. to be flawed and self-contradictory.

Everyone who has read my posts knows that I am an Atheist. But ultimately all speculations about “What came before the beginning?” address the same question. Theist claim it is god, Deists calim it is a deity, Agnostics have an open mind about the matter, Atheists do not preclude the possibility of something but reject god, most scientists agree that there must have been a beginning at some point. But in the end we are all trying to understand and formulate a unifying concept of That which is the underlying condition and causality of this universe and which makes the manifestation of reality possible in the first place.
I can understand Darren’s observation that I often make a (small) reference to Potential as a possible candidate for “That which may become reality”, which is Websters defininition, not mine. But that very definition does address all questions in their most general form. Potential, That which may become reality.  I dare anyone to say that this is not a true statement. If you do, Websters may have to alter the next print to include this alternate viewpoint. What I say is not controversial, in fact it is mundane. But when one starts applying the concept of a potential field, or soup, or fabric, or a universal condition which always precedes reality, then the use of the word becomes clearer and more profound as it does not oppose or replace any currently accepted theory of the nature of the universe. For instance Potential is perfectly suited to support the “string theory”, it is perfectly suited to support E=Mc2, it is perfectly suited to support “quantum suspension”. It cannot be falsified because potential always precedes reality. If there is not sufficient potential an event cannot and will not happen (perhaps that is the falsifier).
I am NOT claiming that the concept of Potential is proof of a god. On the contrary, I am claiming that which is recognized as god in all religions and non theistic philosophies, as well as the basic causality of any event in the physical sciences , can be summed up as Potential (That which may become reality). It’s not complicated at all. I can’t understand the vehement objections to such a simple concept.
My amazement comes from the unwillingness of either side to try and condense their respective viewpoints toward an identification of a universal condition which (excepting intelligence and intent), can be agreed on in principle by all parties.

[ Edited: 28 April 2010 09:26 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4625
Joined  2007-10-05
Write4U - 28 April 2010 09:22 PM

It cannot be falsified…
I can’t understand the vehement objections to such a simple concept.

The objections I am making are precisely because you keep yammering about something which “cannot be falsified.” As George stated this is nothing more than armchair philosophy, and quite frankly I am tired of hearing about it. Your “Potential” offers nothing more than noise, and one of the things I value on these forums is the high signal-to-noise ratio. Yes, we know “potential” is “that which may become reality.” That explains nothing, it merely defines a word. Give me an explanation for Dark Energy and I’ll pay attention.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 10:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
DarronS - 28 April 2010 09:29 PM
Write4U - 28 April 2010 09:22 PM

It cannot be falsified…
I can’t understand the vehement objections to such a simple concept.

The objections I am making are precisely because you keep yammering about something which “cannot be falsified.” As George stated this is nothing more than armchair philosophy, and quite frankly I am tired of hearing about it. Your “Potential” offers nothing more than noise, and one of the things I value on these forums is the high signal-to-noise ratio. Yes, we know “potential” is “that which may become reality.” That explains nothing, it merely defines a word. Give me an explanation for Dark Energy and I’ll pay attention.

Actually the word defines a condition. Dark energy may well be an aspect of Potential.
Seems to me that all philosophy is “armchair”, because it involves only thought.

Anyway, I certainly would not want to drown out the music with my “noise”. Thus I shall refrain from further comment in this thread.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 May 2010 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  337
Joined  2008-09-10

Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war!
With the books of Dawkins going on before!

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2