Jamest is right!

[pErvinalia]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

[Seth]

No, troll, it's not.

Yes, trollbait, it is.

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact.

If you think that definite matter can exist as a 'field equation', or that 'field equations' can actually interact, then you're off your fucking trolley.

Every particle of matter or energy can be viewed as a field and represented as field equations that gives the relative probabilities of that particle's position, momentum, energy, etc. The field equations of a single particle in isolation are relatively simple. However, as the equation's domains are potentially infinite in extent, they all overlap and affect each other.

I wasn't referring to what matter can be viewed as, or represented as, or even mathematical probabilities. I explicitly spoke about definiteness and existence in the same breath, independent of all of that enigmatic shite. Is it your intention to turn materialism into a 'spiritual' endeavour?

I was talking about the current thinking of "matter" vis-a-vis quantum physics, nothing more. I wasn't getting into philosophical navel-gazing and mind-wankery. Of the two fields, I know which I consider "enigmatic shite".

My statement above was a heavily abridged version.

Just as well, since a lengthy exposition of such nonsense would be requiring of a lengthier whip to punish you thus.

Please, Hammer, don't hurt me!

The version that Newton was dismissing, that bodies have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves."

You actually believe that there's a credible version of materialism which lends weight to the idea that matter has no definite existence? C'mon squire, you're way too intelligent to believe that bollocks.

I certainly do. And, in case you weren't listening earlier, it is known as modern physics! Matter and energy are interchangeable. The particles that make up both can, and do, mutate between the two states. E = mc2, if you hadn't heard!

What relevance is the position of my head relative to a pile of sand? I agree with Newton's statement that bodies do not have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" but I fail to see how this in any way changes ones proclivity towards atheism.

You're of the opinion that if matter itself does not exist, that there's still good reasons to be an atheist?

No, I am of the opinion that you shouldn't try putting words into my mouth and then answering the wrong question - that way lies strawmen! Matter exists. It simply is not as fixed, independent and absolute as previously thought.

Wtf have you been smoking?

Nothing for years.

Despite his self-evident genius and the huge body of mathematical and physical texts he produced, he wasted far more time attempting to transmute base metals into gold, searching for the philosopher's stone and writing abstruse and (some would say) heretical religious and occult tracts that he concealed from the world out of fear of prosecution.

He lived (mainly) in the 17th century, so please give the guy some slack. Chemical knowledge was practically nil; religion was especially prominent at that time (born during the English Civil War!), when to be heretical had serious repercussions. The fact that he was seriously investigating chemical truths only serves to lend weight to the expansiveness of his inquisitive mind; the fact that he was challenging established religious views only serves to show that he was ballsy. You don't really have a point worth making, since your points only [really] serve to highlight what a genius he was.

Never said he wasn't a genius. In fact, I believe I used that exact word in the response you're replying to. But, in common with many geniuses, he was a little bonkers. And an all round nasty bastard too, if the accounts I have read are true.

Here's hoping that you're not in a bad mood tonight.

Not at all. Here's hoping you don't feel it necessary to call me a cunt any time soon!

I love cunts. I'm confused as per why the concept ever became the base of a derogatory comment.

Not something I can fathom either. But we live in a world where blind faith is considered a virtue and lust a vice - so meh.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety. That's precisely why they're all fucking idiots.

I'd happily fuck an idiot if she was hot. Your point?

[jamest]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

My evidence for God will not be forthcoming in the presence of such delusion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

My evidence for God will not be forthcoming in the presence of such delusion.

If someone decides to twat you one for spouting such bollocks, I'll just bet you stand there thinking, "Given that the observation/experience of this fist approaching my face, and a fist approaching my face itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

I shall not move my face out of the way in the presence of such delusion."
Good luck with that.

[Seth]

Nothing is independent. Everything is field equations and they all interact. That don't make any more room for god than the other version. I don't really get Newton's point. But then again, he was quite a bit mad.

If nothing is independent and everything is an interacting field equation, how does this not make room for God? Things interact in this universe that we can neither detect nor understand as yet, so it's entirely plausible that there are interacting field equations that equal God that we are as yet unable to detect or quantify. Indeed, if nothing is independent, and everything interacts, it makes it MORE likely that some larger, more complex intelligence exists as a "macro intelligence" of which our entire species (or planet, or solar system, or galaxy) is but a single neuron in an infinite mind.

Neither more nor less likely.

I disagree. If everything is interdependent and interacting it creates a much more complex system than if each thing is independent and not interacting. We know that complexity favors the emergence of intelligence, so an infinitely complex system would appear to be infinitely intelligent.

If all bodies have "complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves" (whatever that actually means), then there is room for a god as another body with "complete, absolute and independent reality in itself".

True.

If not, then everything is interconnected and, in theory, god could be interconnected in there too.

True.

The REAL test is, as always, what evidence do we have that there is a god in the mix? And the answer is, nothing but subjective anecdote and speculation. An answer that is independent on either viewpoint.

What utter nonsense. Your anthropocentric conceit is showing I'm afraid. What on earth leads you to the specious belief (a fairly religious one) that the existence of God, or anything else for that matter, is conditioned on our having comprehensible evidence of it? Just because we don't have evidence of something...anything at all...doesn't provide a scintilla evidence against that thing's existence. To say that "The REAL test" is human knowledge of the existence of evidence is irrational in the extreme. According to your claim, electrons did not exist until they were postulated, searched for and discovered, as if the discovery caused electrons to come into being throughout the universe.

No, the "real test" is whether or not a thing exists, and the fact that we puny humans may not have the intellect or capacity to detect, observe and explain how it is that a thing exists is less than meaningless.

Yours is the anthropocentric conceit of science that makes fools of pseudoscientists like yourself who are mired so deep in the narrow crack you call a mind that you think that if you don't know about and understand something, it does not exist.

Things exist with or without your understanding, or your existence...because *I* will them into existence....

[pErvinalia]

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

So it's just a coincidence that we both don't choose to believe in God? You got to that point via evidence, and we just stumbled there somehow?

[Seth]

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

So it's just a coincidence that we both don't choose to believe in God? You got to that point via evidence, and we just stumbled there somehow?

I don't choose not to believe in God. I don''t choose to believe in God. I keep an open mind and watch carefully for, and carefully evaluate, any evidence pointing either way, and I refuse to draw faulty conclusions based on personal bias or inadequate credible information.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What utter nonsense. Your anthropocentric conceit is showing I'm afraid. What on earth leads you to the specious belief (a fairly religious one) that the existence of God, or anything else for that matter, is conditioned on our having comprehensible evidence of it?

I never claimed that it did. So hang your strawman back up in its cupboard. I have never claimed that the existence or non-existence of anything depends upon "our having comprehensible evidence of it"! It is perfectly feasible that things exist that we are unable to detect. However, having a little evidence does tend to tip the scales in favour of that thing's existence.

[pErvinalia]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

My evidence for God will not be forthcoming in the presence of such delusion.

Nice wriggling, but you didn't really address the point. What is YOUR definition of 'evidence', and what is your evidence for God? If evidence isn't to be limited to metaphysical/ontological evidence, then what is it to correctly include?

[pErvinalia]

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

So it's just a coincidence that we both don't choose to believe in God? You got to that point via evidence, and we just stumbled there somehow?

I don't choose not to believe in God. I don''t choose to believe in God. I keep an open mind and watch carefully for, and carefully evaluate, any evidence pointing either way, and I refuse to draw faulty conclusions based on personal bias or inadequate credible information.

So, in other words, you are an atheist. Welcome to the team!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

My evidence for God will not be forthcoming in the presence of such delusion.

So you have evidence for god but you're not going to share it.... and that's my fault? We have a smiley for just this occasion.

[pErvinalia]

I'd be pretty certain his 'evidence' for God will be: "therefore God".

[JimC]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety. That's precisely why they're all fucking idiots.

So, evidence that can't be observed in a repeatable fashion is useful, is it? So, little Johnny's internal belief that a small purple hippopotamus lives in his garden and talks to him every night is a valid datum in describing the world we all live in?