Ever felt insignificant?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is the universe intelligent?

since the U contains any and all intelligence this may be a somewhat understated question, as an organism i have some intelligence, but the intelligence is what acquaints me wwith my insignificance eh ...

has an argument about the nature of God just slipped into the theory of multi-verses, universes, and cosmologies etc? ...oops

[scottycelt]

Oh, I know the feeling only too well. Or as Mrs RM says "You're not rich enough to be a Sugar Daddy and too old to be a ToyBoy". Like to think there's a compliment hidden away in there. Not found it yet.

The hidden compliment may be something like ...

'I feel I must always remind you that is was poor old you who somehow managed to gain the privilege of my hand in marriage despite the greater material achievements and exciting youthful vigour and better looks of my many doting sugar daddies and toyboys ..'

So take a bow, RM!..

[LeMartinPecheur]

What makes me feel insignificant these days is - when walking the streets a beautiful young girl asks me for directions, it dawns on me that she has approached me because as as an old crumbly I no longer am seen as any kind of sexual threat...

Just prove her wrong, vinteuil, prove her wrong, dear boy...

[scottycelt]

Just prove her wrong, vinteuil, prove her wrong, dear boy...

Poor vinteuil might then be accused (understandably) by the young lady of 'sexual harassment by a dirty old man'... difficult one that for old codgers ..

[kernelbogey]

Here is a little computer tool which is fascinating to play with to get some sense of the scale of both life on earth and of our planet's place in the universe.

WARNING: don't start looking at this at work as you won't get much done for a couple of hours.

[Serial_Apologist]

since the U contains any and all intelligence this may be a somewhat understated question, as an organism i have some intelligence, but the intelligence is what acquaints me wwith my insignificance eh ...

has an argument about the nature of God just slipped into the theory of multi-verses, universes, and cosmologies etc? ...oops

I once argued with an atheist friend that I must be an agnostic, given that I attribute intelligence to the universe. His reply was that in anthropomorphising the universe as intelligent I was confusing human intelligence with the cosmic order. So I became an atheist at that point, until Scottycelt let me know that I could no more disprove the existence of God than he could prove it/him. I tried pointing out to him the impossibility of proving a negative, but he had a debating point there and wasn't having any of it.

[scottycelt]

I once argued with an atheist friend that I must be an agnostic, given that I attribute intelligence to the universe. His reply was that in anthropomorphising the universe as intelligent I was confusing human intelligence with the cosmic order. So I became an atheist at that point, until Scottycelt let me know that I could no more disprove the existence of God than he could prove it/him. I tried pointing out to him the impossibility of proving a negative, but he had a debating point there and wasn't having any of it.

I'm not quite sure of your point here, S_A, but let me try and finally clarify my position. I do indeed challenge the Atheist for his/her insistence that the Believer must provide 'proof' for the existence of God but then swiftly retreats from 'proof' when in turn challenged on the apparent certainty that there isn't. Convenient bluster about being asked to 'prove' the non-existence of 'spaghetti monsters' or whatever will simply not wash.

Let me put it like this:

There is a God ... Believer ... Dogmatic Statement.
There isn't a God ... Atheist ... Dogmatic Statement
Not sure one way or the other ... Agnostic ... Non-Dogmatic Statement.

In many ways the Agnostic view is the most honest as the other two require a great deal of faith beyond the scope of science, which is why atheism is as much a stated belief as any other.

Therefore if the Believer is expected to provide incontrovertible 'scientific' proof for Existence, then the Atheist must surely abide by similar rules for the claimed Non-Existence. From personal experience I have come to believe in a 'woman's intuition'. I cannot 'prove' it and fortunately no one has asked me to do so, but I'm almost certain it exists. I see no reason why I should be expected to 'prove' it exists any more than someone who claims it definitely doesn't.

So, in the case of religious or non-religious belief, I see absolutely no difference between the two regarding any demand for absolute 'proof'.

Hope that finally clarifies it!

[Pabmusic]

...I do indeed challenge the Atheist for his/her insistence that the Believer must provide 'proof' for the existence of God but then swiftly retreats from 'proof' when in turn challenged on the apparent certainty that there isn't. Convenient bluster about being asked to 'prove' the non-existence of 'spaghetti monsters' or whatever will simply not wash.

Let me put it like this:

There is a God ... Believer ... Dogmatic Statement.
There isn't a God ... Atheist ... Dogmatic Statement
Not sure one way or the other ... Agnostic ... Non-Dogmatic Statement.

In many ways the Agnostic view is the most honest as the other two require a great deal of faith beyond the scope of science, which is why atheism is as much a stated belief as any other.

Therefore if the Believer is expected to provide incontrovertible 'scientific' proof for Existence, then the Atheist must surely abide by similar rules for the claimed Non-Existence. From personal experience I have come to believe in a 'woman's intuition'. I cannot 'prove' it and fortunately no one has asked me to do so, but I'm almost certain it exists. I see no reason why I should be expected to 'prove' it exists any more than someone who claims it definitely doesn't.

So, in the case of religious or non-religious belief, I see absolutely no difference between the two regarding any demand for absolute 'proof'.

Hope that finally clarifies it!

Nope. You have based it all on your own definitions. For example, a 'belief' scale ought to go more like this:

1. Certain, or at least unquestioning, about the existence of a god (fundamentalist)
2. Not actually certain, but as near to it as makes no practical difference (most serious theists, I suspect - Rowan Williams has said he is in this group)
3. Not certain, but leaning that way (most who accept Pascal's wager, but who don't want to think about it too much)
4. Not sure one way or another (genuinely uninterested, or fence-sitters)
5. Not certain, but leaning the other way (most who have doubts, but who don't want to think about it too much)
6. Not actually certain, but as near to it as makes no practical difference (Bertrand Russell's teapot - Richard Dawkins has said he is in this group)
7. Certain in a dogmatic way about the non-existence of a god (not so easy to find examples of this)

Even that scale is not exact, because it does not cover all shades between the extremes. If you choose to use the word 'atheist' for no. 7, and 'agnostic for 2-6, that's OK, but it's not how others see themselves. Even T H Huxley ('Darwin's bulldog' - who coined the term 'agnostic' to describe himself) didn't use it to mean anything other than that he had no knowledge of the existence of a god.

As for the burden of proof, that's really on a sliding scale as well. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (except in mathematics, at least), so it is meaningless to demand that someone who doesn't accept the existence of a god actually prove that gods don't exist. That was the point of Bertrand Russell's teapot. It is a little different when it comes to justifying non-belief in something, though that still does not amount to proof of the thing's non-existence, but merely gives a statement of your own misgivings. Of course, there may well be many points in the statement for which there are proofs, of course.

As a general rule, the burden of proof must lie with the person asserting something, even more so as what is known and what is asserted diverge. That means, inevitably, that theists will shoulder that burden much more often. If someone wants me to believe something that is at odds - or appears to be so - with the known universe, surely I am entitled to expect that person to provide reasons for my accepting that extraordinary position. The point is stronger when the person asserting the unusual also insists that I am personally in danger of being tortured for eternity if I do not accept his view.

[scottycelt]

Nope. You have based it all on your own definitions. For example, a 'belief' scale ought to go more like this:

1. Certain, or at least unquestioning, about the existence of a god (fundamentalist)
2. Not actually certain, but as near to it as makes no practical difference (most serious theists, I suspect - Rowan Williams has said he is in this group)
3. Not certain, but leaning that way (most who accept Pascal's wager, but who don't want to think about it too much)
4. Not sure one way or another (genuinely uninterested, or fence-sitters)
5. Not certain, but leaning the other way (most who have doubts, but who don't want to think about it too much)
6. Not actually certain, but as near to it as makes no practical difference (Bertrand Russell's teapot - Richard Dawkins has said he is in this group)
7. Certain in a dogmatic way about the non-existence of a god (not so easy to find examples of this)

Even that scale is not exact, because it does not cover all shades between the extremes. If you choose to use the word 'atheist' for no. 7, and 'agnostic for 2-6, that's OK, but it's not how others see themselves. Even T H Huxley ('Darwin's bulldog' - who coined the term 'agnostic' to describe himself) didn't use it to mean anything other than that he had no knowledge of the existence of a god.

As for the burden of proof, that's really on a sliding scale as well. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (except in mathematics, at least), so it is meaningless to demand that someone who doesn't accept the existence of a god actually prove that gods don't exist. That was the point of Bertrand Russell's teapot. It is a little different when it comes to justifying non-belief in something, though that still does not amount to proof of the thing's non-existence, but merely gives a statement of your own misgivings. Of course, there may well be many points in the statement for which there are proofs, of course.

As a general rule, the burden of proof must lie with the person asserting something, even more so as what is known and what is asserted diverge. That means, inevitably, that theists will shoulder that burden much more often. If someone wants me to believe something that is at odds - or appears to be so - with the known universe, surely I am entitled to expect that person to provide reasons for my accepting that extraordinary position. The point is stronger when the person asserting the unusual also insists that I am personally in danger of being tortured for eternity if I do not accept his view.

And you have based it on YOUR definitions ... and it seems to me that while yours is merely an expansion of my own you then come to a quite different conclusion .. ie you state that to utter a certainty over the non-existence of something is somehow a 'non-belief'.

The Believer considers their is plenty of 'evidence' (rather than proof') for the existence of God. The Atheist does not accept that 'evidence' but that does not 'prove' non-existence as the true atheist claims. If the police consider they have 'evidence' that a man has committed a murder they interview that person and ask him whether he did or didn't. He is not allowed to simply say ..'hang on, officer, I'm not bound to provide any evidence that I didn't do it as I don't need to prove my innocence because I'm innocent until proven guilty, so we may as well discuss 'teapots' and 'spaghetti monsters'. Under the law he might be deemed to be so (innocent) but he is still expected to provide some sort of counter-evidence/proof that he actually didn't do the dirty deed ... and quite right too!

My understanding of an 'atheist' is your No 7 example and apart from the equally dogmatic No 1, the other five all border on agnosticism to a greater or lesser degree. (though Dawkins' notoriously hysterical and obsessive anti-religious propaganda is curious for a man who apparently isn't totally certain either ?)

I have a distinct feeling we have been down this particular cul-de-sac many times before, so I'm content now to leave it at that and simply share the wonder and mystery of our own existence and that of a quite humanly incomprehensible universe.

[Resurrection Man]

If an atheist says that there is no God then surely God has to exist in order for the Atheist to say that he does not exist ? Or she or non-gender-specific God.

[Pabmusic]

And you have based it on YOUR definitions ... and it seems to me that while yours is merely an expansion of my own you then come to a quite different conclusion .. ie you state that to utter a certainty over the non-existence of something is somehow a 'non-belief'.

The Believer considers their is plenty of 'evidence' (rather than proof') for the existence of God. The Atheist does not accept that 'evidence' but that does not 'prove' non-existence as the true atheist claims. If the police consider they have 'evidence' that a man has committed a murder they interview that person and ask him whether he did or didn't. He is not allowed to simply say ..'hang on, officer, I'm not bound to provide any evidence that I didn't do it as I don't need to prove my innocence because I'm innocent until proven guilty, so we may as well discuss 'teapots' and 'spaghetti monsters'. Under the law he might be deemed to be so (innocent) but he is still expected to provide some sort of counter-evidence/proof that he actually didn't do the dirty deed ... and quite right too!

My understanding of an 'atheist' is your No 7 example and apart from the equally dogmatic No 1, the other five all border on agnosticism to a greater or lesser degree. (though Dawkins' notoriously hysterical and obsessive anti-religious propaganda is curious for a man who apparently isn't totally certain either ?)

I have a distinct feeling we have been down this particular cul-de-sac many times before, so I'm content now to leave it at that and simply share the wonder and mystery of our own existence and that of a quite humanly incomprehensible universe.

Your understanding of the criminal law (Scottish or English, the caution is the same) is questionable. But I do agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence, and with the sentiment behind it.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not quite sure of your point here, S_A, but let me try and finally clarify my position. I do indeed challenge the Atheist for his/her insistence that the Believer must provide 'proof' for the existence of God but then swiftly retreats from 'proof' when in turn challenged on the apparent certainty that there isn't. Convenient bluster about being asked to 'prove' the non-existence of 'spaghetti monsters' or whatever will simply not wash.

Let me put it like this:

There is a God ... Believer ... Dogmatic Statement.
There isn't a God ... Atheist ... Dogmatic Statement
Not sure one way or the other ... Agnostic ... Non-Dogmatic Statement.

In many ways the Agnostic view is the most honest as the other two require a great deal of faith beyond the scope of science, which is why atheism is as much a stated belief as any other.

Therefore if the Believer is expected to provide incontrovertible 'scientific' proof for Existence, then the Atheist must surely abide by similar rules for the claimed Non-Existence. From personal experience I have come to believe in a 'woman's intuition'. I cannot 'prove' it and fortunately no one has asked me to do so, but I'm almost certain it exists. I see no reason why I should be expected to 'prove' it exists any more than someone who claims it definitely doesn't.

So, in the case of religious or non-religious belief, I see absolutely no difference between the two regarding any demand for absolute 'proof'.

Hope that finally clarifies it!

Fair enough scotty. I'd rather summarised your position not expecting you to come back on this, so thanks for the clarification and apols for any misrepresentation. But I think I got the gist in my original message: unable as I am to disprove the existence of God, it would be being dishonest to myself let alone anyone else to describe myself as an atheist, as spelt out.

[scottycelt]

Fair enough scotty. I'd rather summarised your position not expecting you to come back on this, so thanks for the clarification and apols for any misrepresentation. But I think I got the gist in my original message: unable as I am to disprove the existence of God, it would be being dishonest to myself let alone anyone else to describe myself as an atheist, as spelt out.

[MrGongGong]

Come on folks
either there is an orbiting teapot or there isn't

[Pabmusic]

Come on folks
either there is an orbiting teapot or there isn't

Yes, frustrating isn't it?