tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post5311330230805601561..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread on episode #676Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76386497673880441262010-10-13T03:52:55.878-05:002010-10-13T03:52:55.878-05:00This may technically apply to the previous episode...This may technically apply to the previous episode. Also, I have to say I do agree 100%. But I feel I must smirk and raise an eyebrow at Matt's admonishment of the atheist that called in pretending to be a theist.Again,I could not agree more... but uh... isn't that how he met Beth?<br /><br />;-)John-Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650182751863103611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8299986435490800972010-10-06T04:49:50.832-05:002010-10-06T04:49:50.832-05:00I have been meditating on this, and I predict Pat ...I have been meditating on this, and I predict Pat will keep calling back until she gets a chance to properly plug her book.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05426466660495744658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80235100992050789082010-10-04T22:09:01.470-05:002010-10-04T22:09:01.470-05:00@Ricky, re: the universe as a closed system.
You ...@Ricky, re: the universe as a closed system.<br /><br />You seem to not understand the concept of a "closed system." The statement "there is no such thing...as a closed system" is patently false. A solar system, on any reasonable time scale, is a closed system. It is not receiving appreciable amounts of energy from outside of its own orbits, certainly not enough to decrease the entropy of the system. As its sun proceeds through its sequence, it approaches thermodynamic equilibrium, with less and less energy available to do work. It is just one of thousands of closed systems in the universe--the term does not require that said system always have been or always will be closed, as you may be under the impression.<br /><br />At the risk of being hoisted by my own petard, "the universe," <i>by definition,</i> is all that ever was or ever will be. It is all the matter, all the energy, all the gravity, all the dark energy, absolutely everything which exists. <br /><br />For that *not* to be a closed system requires that some source of energy be introduced from *outside* the universe. <br /><br />You are suggesting that the burden of proof lies with those who would accept that nothing exists which does not belong to the set "everything which exists." <br /><br />You are suggesting that something may exist that doesn't belong to the set of all things which exist. That, I should think, is the hard row to hoe, and the burden of proof is on <b>you</b> for such an extraordinary (to say nothing of ludicrous, incoherent and hilarious) claim.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30944331995244320462010-10-04T08:23:59.192-05:002010-10-04T08:23:59.192-05:00Firstly, there's a difference between a closed...Firstly, there's a difference between a closed system and an isolated system; closed systems disallow mass flow, while isolated systems disallow flow of energy as well.<br /><br />Secondly, whether or not the universe is an isolated system depends primarily on the definition of the universe, I'd think. If we define the universe as consisting of all matter and energy, how could any mass or energy enter from outside?Dimitrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802842224248550248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15835445472301268352010-10-04T06:57:25.520-05:002010-10-04T06:57:25.520-05:00@Skeptical Rationalist
There is no way to prove t...@Skeptical Rationalist<br /><br />There is no way to prove that the universe is a closed system, that's all I said. It is possible, but unlikely, that it is, since there are no other closed systems in nature.Ricky in Codman Squarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12732283531861448156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-605916290158325052010-10-04T06:14:57.847-05:002010-10-04T06:14:57.847-05:00I think what he meant is that the time at which an...I think what he meant is that the time at which an atom will decay is unknowable, as with the specific position of an electron. <br /><br />Nonetheless, we can offer probability distributions for these things which tell us that some times and positions are more likely than others.Dimitrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802842224248550248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63915681518263326062010-10-03T21:50:30.696-05:002010-10-03T21:50:30.696-05:00No it's not unknowable, it's RANDOM. We k...No it's not unknowable, it's RANDOM. We know atomic decay occurs, thus it is knowable. The unpredictability of it's decay is also one of it's qualities that we KNOW.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32897640091210917002010-10-02T06:14:11.018-05:002010-10-02T06:14:11.018-05:00If we were talking about anything other than "...If we were talking about anything other than "God" there wouldn't even be a debate.<br /><br />Take atomic decay, or the position of an electron. These things are, in an inviolable sense, <b>unknowable</b> to any degree of certainty.<br /><br />However, that does not preclude us from having some knowledge about the rules which govern their behavior, or the ability to make broad predictions about possible contingencies.<br /><br />The very fact that you have to come in and say something like "<i>Something that is unknowable by definition cannot have ANY thing said about it</i>" is a real warning flag to me that you are trying to stack the definitions deck to your advantage, thereby opening yourself up to accusations of straw-manning.<br /><br />I am trying to help you here. It's a far stronger argument to point out that the apologist is resorting to "mysterious ways" when they don't have a good answer, or they're playing the "unknowable" card as a get-out-of-a-fallacy-free card. In which case you're far better off nailing them on the actual contradictions, rather than trying to bash them over the head with a contradiction that holds only if definitions are accepted to your specific advantage. That gets you nowhere fast, and a canny theist is going to call bullshit on you.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67266424654467939472010-10-01T07:07:42.209-05:002010-10-01T07:07:42.209-05:00I would say that unknowable vs knowable is indeed ...I would say that unknowable vs knowable is indeed a true dichotomy, because you will most often see the definition of "unknowable" be "not knowable".<br /><br />However, it is not particuarly clear what "knowable" means, so in different contexts it could mean partially or completely knowable, and so "unkowable", being the negation, would mean, respectively, completely or partially unknowable.<br /><br />As such, there is indeed more than one kind of knowability, but, in any single context, unknowable vs knowable is nonetheless a dichotomy. <br /><br />Ing thinks the default meanings should be knowable = partially knowable (i.e. you can know something about it) and unknowable = completely unknowable (i.e. you can't know anything about it). However, I don't see how completely knowable is a less valid meaning for "knowable".<br /><br />As such, I think it would be best to use terms like partially and completely to specify the type of knowability in question.Dimitrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802842224248550248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66548194846792371562010-09-30T19:55:30.011-05:002010-09-30T19:55:30.011-05:00No you're just flat out wrong.
If you can say...No you're just flat out wrong.<br /><br />If you can say ANYTHING about a subject with a degree of certainty that's reasonable than you KNOW SOMETHING about them. Something that is unknowable by definition cannot have ANY thing said about it.<br /><br />God is unknowable<br />God is Good<br /><br />Those two CAN'T co-exist because to state "GOd is GOod" you have to deny that his motivations or nature is unknowable. If God is unknowable how can you know he's good? What if he's amoral...or a sandwitch....or a brick. All are equally valid if it's something unknowable.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70534955405693585472010-09-30T06:00:41.005-05:002010-09-30T06:00:41.005-05:00Saying that God is unknowable...and then insisting...<i>Saying that God is unknowable...and then insisting he is benevolent is contradictory. What you should say is God's motivation for suffering is unknowable, but we know other things about him/it.</i><br /><br />That's exactly my point--if "Benevolence" is Property A and is knowable, and "Suffering" is property D and "unknowable" then the statement <i>God is Knowable</i> is, in the final analysis, false. Therefore "God is unknowable" is not an incoherent statement.<br /><br />The fact that this whole silly tangent would make more sense if the adjectives "Completely knowable" and "completely unknowable" are used should tip you off that Knowability is a continuum, and <b>not</b> a single-valued dichotomy. <br /><br />You're quite simply barking up the wrong counterapologetics tree.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75474056076366782102010-09-29T20:44:52.551-05:002010-09-29T20:44:52.551-05:00No but Knowable versus Unknownable IS a true dicon...No but Knowable versus Unknownable IS a true diconomy.<br /><br />If A is made up of parts B C and D and we know many things about B, some about C and nothing about D. Then A is still knowable, because we have some knowledge of its properties (B, C). We do not have a perfect understanding of it (D) but the existence of B and C prove it is not Unknowable. D is unknowable.<br /><br />If you can confidently assign any property to an object you are saying it is knowable (you KNOW SOMETHING about it). <br /><br />Saying that God is unknowable...and then insisting he is benevolent is contradictory. What you should say is God's motivation for suffering is unknowable, but we know other things about him/it.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88637332213337962342010-09-29T16:27:50.818-05:002010-09-29T16:27:50.818-05:00Not everything is a dichotomy such as Theist/Not-T...Not everything is a dichotomy such as Theist/Not-Theist, Ing. Things such as "Knowable" and "Unknowable" can be presented as a continuum, or other system of multiple variables.<br /><br />To play Theist's advocate for a moment, it doesn't strike me as necessarily incoherent or self-contradictory for someone to claim knowledge of some aspect of god, while still allowing that some aspects, and therefore the whole, is in total "unknowable." <br /><br />How they back up their knowledge claims is the real question of course, and whether playing the "unknowable" card isn't just a cop-out to an atheist asking thorny questions.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25094995372201402372010-09-29T07:15:03.709-05:002010-09-29T07:15:03.709-05:00Unknowable vs knowable are binary
If you can say ...Unknowable vs knowable are binary<br /><br />If you can say ANYTHING about a subject than it is knowable, ie it is possible to understand it. Even if it as a whole is not understood you have demonstrated that it is understandABLE.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46311660610240722692010-09-29T06:02:24.004-05:002010-09-29T06:02:24.004-05:00New Rule: Due to the upcoming time constraints, th...New Rule: Due to the upcoming time constraints, the only response anyone gets who says "I lied, I'm really an athei--"*CLICK*<br /><br />"Allrighty, we've got Mel in Albuquerque, you're on."<br /><br />@Ricky<br /><br />Please explain where the additional energy being injected into the system otherwise known as "the universe" is coming from? I've never heard any physicist make such a claim.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85408625420734181902010-09-29T02:28:07.491-05:002010-09-29T02:28:07.491-05:00In response to John K(mostly):
I've always fou...In response to John K(mostly):<br />I've always found Matt to be incredibly patient. The best word I can find to describe Jeff is "loud". He is a wild card. He looks mildly amused the whole time. And then, as with Pat, he seems to have decided he's had enough and then just lets loose with all the anti-bullshit he was thinking up the whole time. It's almost like he has absolute control over his rage and he can just let it go as needed. carefully calculated rage; freaky. Just look at his reaction to Ed vs any other difficult caller (e.g. "ed, ed, ed, ed....")<br /><br />ANYWAY, to play nutter's advocate: Matt said, "there is no unknowable component to an unknowable". Sorry Matt, you are wrong. That's on par with the creationists saying "science doesn't know everything so what it claims to know must be false". A+B+C may be unknowbale while A and B are both knowable.Mushinronshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11034701159832253502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46437131681468181532010-09-29T02:08:42.119-05:002010-09-29T02:08:42.119-05:00With the other audio problems in mind, I thought t...With the other audio problems in mind, I thought that it was a part of last weeks show I was listening to. Yadayada....some other guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13923189831903313319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41076973153776679732010-09-28T20:21:58.571-05:002010-09-28T20:21:58.571-05:00@ricky the thing I love most about when they try t...@ricky the thing I love most about when they try to reference thermodynamics is that it was established in EXACTLY the same way that their dreaded evil-ution was: painstakingly long and careful experimentation, combined with examination of physical evidence. <br /><br />Course not to mention that if they're assuming that thermodynamics is inviolable, then how did all them miracles happen? And, IF I grant that God can break the laws of physics at will (which I don't), then what you're saying is "The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases, unless God feels like changing something", which is functionally equivalent to saying "The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy sometimes increases, sometimes stays the same and sometimes goes down. It's just not as convincingerauqssihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219367018908376819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16609522289182752902010-09-28T17:16:05.868-05:002010-09-28T17:16:05.868-05:00I would like to throw out there that when anyone (...I would like to throw out there that when anyone (even a fake theist) tries to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics as "proof" of a creator, that law has NO application in the physical universe as we observe it. There is no such thing (as far as we've seen so far) as a closed system, which the law requires to be accurate. It is highly unlikely that even the universe is a closed system and anyone claiming otherwise will have a hard row to hoe trying to prove it.Ricky in Codman Squarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12732283531861448156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64561023914824630602010-09-28T14:12:59.908-05:002010-09-28T14:12:59.908-05:00Matt - "I think this conversation is over&quo...Matt - "I think this conversation is over"<br /><br />Pat - "Why?"<br /><br />Jeff - "Because your a loon"<br /><br />Hahahahaha!!!!The Dimeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562121729338630822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2757085561071735922010-09-28T10:56:42.625-05:002010-09-28T10:56:42.625-05:00Because Bahai are notorious wishy washy twits who ...Because Bahai are notorious wishy washy twits who will dance around without making any point in any given conversation with them. <br /><br />And of course the inanity and dishonesty of "every belief is good...save for disbelief" Really? Even Atzec human sacrifice? Even sex cults? Even Jim Jones? Pure bullshit.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20538608632534401612010-09-28T08:46:03.362-05:002010-09-28T08:46:03.362-05:00This was a great show! The callers were great, ev...This was a great show! The callers were great, even Pat, especially the way she was handled! Exemplary! :D<br /><br />Of course, the musical interruptions were weird (its always something new that goes wrong...) but other than that I really enjoyed the showPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14791359210633134794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32178072219894377042010-09-28T07:57:08.021-05:002010-09-28T07:57:08.021-05:00Did that guy ever listen to himself and realize th...Did that guy ever listen to himself and realize that he sounds like he has spirals for eyes?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35096096504396608652010-09-28T07:04:02.440-05:002010-09-28T07:04:02.440-05:00I think you're right with Baha'i. The time...I think you're right with Baha'i. The timeline as well as the same wishy-washy unity of everything under god philosophy. I had never given it more than a glance honestly. I still don't understand the reluctance to tell us what his religion was, though.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16584354170208789702010-09-28T06:25:17.650-05:002010-09-28T06:25:17.650-05:00I think you will find that AJ is Movementarian.
H...I think you will find that AJ is Movementarian.<br /><br />He would have been wearing his "I love the leader" T-Shirt whilst making the call.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16439248183580550162noreply@blogger.com