A scientist who begins his experiment has to establish the "ground" first before he can start his tests. The best scientists are the ones who start from a position of "I know nothing". In so doing, the scientist has remained open. This means, he can accept the possibility of everything, and exclude the things he can test for. What is left will be either true or more closely representing the truth. Any other approach means we have started with a "position or assumed position", and from there are now trying to prove or disprove the position. We already know that everything in the outside world is in constant change, therefore the latter approach is likened to building a house on quicksand. The former approach allows a steady, careful and deliberate method for testing.

So the goal of the testing is to establish whether or not a creator / God etc exists or not. As we have a ground of "knowing nothing", let's use a framework to create a structure to work from, let's use the model of Nature (or as it used to be called, Natural Science). We can take any branch within nature, but lets just say, we'll look at a tree and see what we can discover about a tree after at it is life and therefore should contain any creator, if at all.

It begins from a seed, it is placed in the soil, and given sun, water and time, it becomes a big tree. So that's our structure. Now, there were some gaps in the example, for instance, we know a seed is very small. We also know that a tree (in our example) is very big - its an oak tree. How did that happen? Well, we added sun, soil, water and time and there was a tree.

Did the tree come from the sun? Did it come from the soil? Did it come from the water? Did it come from time? It doesn't appear to be in any one of these things, but it was most certainly apparent in all of these things. If we look at any combination of these elements, the tree was not found in any combination of them, other than in full combination. Ok, so what did combining all these things do to change the seed into a tree? Did we plant the seed and the next day it was a tree? No. The tree grew by combining these elements. So what is growth? Let's look at other examples of growth on the planet. In fact, everything on the planet is in a state of growth (or it's opposite). Everything in the state of growth has continuity, everything else is heading towards not being here. So there is an "unknown" force appearing to be evident by the facts of growth and its opposite.

In our experiment, we cannot go beyond this question. Therefore as scientists we have to conclude, we were not able to prove there wasn't a creator, but we can say, if there is one, it lies in Growth or its opposite.

So to categorically say, there is not a creator is to assume that whatever lies in growth or its opposite is not a creator, and yet scientifically, we were unable to prove that. As a manager once said to me, "Don't assume, it makes an ass| (out of) u | (and) me". Now the real question should be, what is your aversion to the concept of a creator or creating force?

So to categorically say, there is not a creator is to assume that whatever lies in growth or its opposite is not a creator, and yet scientifically, we were unable to prove that. — Antidote

As has been pointed out many times to this line of thougt is that your "creator" is not not an answer. Because it only leads to the question: Well, who created the creator? A super-creator? And who created that one?
Infinite regression....

You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.

If we are saying we "have to prove there is one", then the question is already flawed and what follows is just non sense, a spinning of the wheels and wasting time. The chap is coming from the point of a view of an atheist (Not a Creator), and yet asking the question, "is there a creator". The former can be answered, the latter cannot.

infinite regression.... — Nobeernolife

Not so, infinite growth is in opposition to infinite regression.

who created the creator? A super-creator? And who created that one? — Nobeernolife

Slow down a little, we are too far ahead, we didn't prove the first one existed yet! Or have we fallen into assumption again, and then describing the characteristics of our imagination?

I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that. — Pfhorrest

Then defend your position sir, because from where I'm looking it looks like your up to your waste in quicksand... and sinking (in a playful manner of course).

You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. — Antidote

I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.

Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.

At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please.

I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.

Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.

At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please. — god must be atheist

There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist. There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that IT IS MORE LIKELY one way or the other.

Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess...worth nothing more than a coin toss.

People making assertions in either direction should stop doing it...or at least, acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess.

Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess — Frank Apisa

If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".

As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.

acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess — Frank Apisa

As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions.

You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do. — Antidote

No, the burden should not be to prove a negative. How do you come up with this stuff?

I can not "prove" that there are no pink unicorns on Mars. So if you claim there are, our default assumption should be that there are, and we doubters have to "prove" that there aren`t? Surely you see how ridiculous that is.

the burden should not be to prove a negative — Nobeernolife

Where is the burden? I appreciate there is investment in "no creator" after all, it makes life a lot easier, but that's not the point - that's a distraction. More often than not, this position is one of "I AM Creator or God". I appreciate here I am in danger of making an assumption when I stay this, so I will leave it there.

We were careful not to fall into error by trying to "prove a creator" because we have already established to prove it is not possible, so instead our only option is to see if we can disprove it. This is what a scientist does when they want to gather facts.

our default assumption should be that there are — Nobeernolife

Once again, you fall into error. You have made an assumption on what is or what isn't, and having created your position, you are now looking to defend it. In our method we have not made assumptions and we have no position. Facts should remain neutral. And yes, I see how ridiculous your statement is.

Nobeernolife
307
You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.
— Antidote

No, the burden should not be to prove a negative. How do you come up with this stuff? — Nobeernolife

IF an individual says, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...THAT IS A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT.

The burden falls on the person making such an assertion.

IF you are asserting that is not so...YOU ARE WRONG.

Antidote
78
Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess
— Frank Apisa

If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".

As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.

acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess
— Frank Apisa

As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions. — Antidote

Gotta run right now, but I will respond to this in a while, Anti.

THAT IS A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT. — Frank Apisa

As you saw, we didn't positively assert anything, because we already identified the flaw if we did so. There is not positive assertion of "a creator does exist", only a positive assertion that "we couldn't prove a creator doesn't exist". If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption and therefore in error.

IF you are asserting that is not so...YOU ARE WRONG. — Frank Apisa

So far, your argument as been in the assertion of "God DOESNT exist". As you rightly say, that is WRONG. If you "change sides" and say "God DOES exist" you are still WRONG. We have done neither. We have pointed out, very carefully, that to assert "God or creator DOESNT exist" was not proved and therefore to do such, is an assumption and therefore in error.

Back for a second.

Anti...take your own advise and carefully read before responding.

At no point am I suggesting that YOU are asserting that no gods exist.

I not only used the word "IF" at the beginning of each of those sentences...I made sure to capitalize it.

If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite". — Anti

I am not asking you to prove a god or a creator does not exist...any more than I would ask you to lift the Empire State Building using just YOUR muscles. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

As for "it would be in growth or its opposite" I truly do not understand what that means. I tend to think (whatever it means) is that it is also JUST A GUESS. This "using reason" some people offer is almost always just a denial that guessing is happening.

But, I promise to stay open minded on it if you want to explain why you are doing a non-theist version of what a god must possess that is done by theists in the opposite direction.

the word "IF" — Frank Apisa

The word IF already suggests were a not sure of the ground below us. In the example, we established the ground as "knowing nothing".

This "using reason" — Frank Apisa

Reason is a ladder. We used it to start from "ground" and climbed it to see if we could prove "creator doesn't exist", which is the position the atheist stands on. We managed to climb as far as "cannot prove creator DOESNT exist" and then we acknowledged that from here, we could go no further.

If you go any further than this, you have transgressed because you are in the realm of assumption, which we have acknowledged as making "an ass out of you and me". Or simply, error.

As for "it would be in growth or its opposite" I truly do not understand what that means — Frank Apisa

So in the absence of understanding, you drop back into assumption. I feel I'm repeating myself a lot here. What you are failing to grasp, is there nothing to grasp in the example we gave. Your position as "creator DOES NOT exist" has grasped where there is no grasping. Hence, in error.

Because you have asked for it, I will give it.

As you saw, we didn't positively assert anything, because we already identified the flaw if we did so. There is not positive assertion of "a creator does exist", only a positive assertion that "we couldn't prove a creator doesn't exist". If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption and therefore in error. — Antidote

Been trying to explain exactly that to Frank Apisa for a whole string of messages now, but it is like talking to a wall....

Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?

You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.

But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?

I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved.

The fact is "we don't know". That's the point being made, albeit a rather strong point. Is it better in light of "not knowing" to deny it or have faith? I don't know either as you can see, although given the consequences, I prefer to have faith. We presented the example just to prove the position of the atheist is no different to the position of the believer, accept one is aggressive one way, and the other is kind and caring the other. But the consequences of such are very much different. I wish no ill-will on anyone or anything, and I prefer the way of love to the other. If I can help someone else see that, maybe they too will be more loving, or maybe not but I tried.

Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? — Antidote

Would be interesting to meet some people like that... I never had that experience. Where I live people are generally happy with "there are things we don´t know", so that situation never comes up.

I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved. — Antidote

As I said before, introducing a "creator" does not answer any question. I am curious why as a scientist you do not see that.

Been trying to explain exactly that to Frank Apisa for a whole string of messages now, but it is like talking to a wall.... — Nobeernolife

YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"

Never in million years. Make that a billion years.

I have been the one stating that...NOT YOU.

Anyone asserting "a god exists" or "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists"...

...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS...or an assumption if that word makes you feel any better. Or a supposition...if that is your preference.

So get off the you've "been trying to explain that" to me.

happy with "there are things we don't know" — Nobeernolife

That's the right starting point. We don't know. Those of the faith "don't know" and those without faith "don't know". In general, those with faith seem to be kinder, more caring but then again, that would follow because they have faith that in the end, they will be judged. And if so, lets make it for the good, not for the not good! If there is no creator, what does it matter, you were kind and caring, you didn't lose anything. I suppose that's the point too.

introducing a "creator" does not answer any question — Nobeernolife

Look at both your statements here, they are really saying the same thing aren't they? So I certainly do see it.

Antidote
83
Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?

You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.

But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?

I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved. — Antidote

For the record...and to clear up point of disagreement with you...

...I have never said that a blind guess that there is at least one god...or that there are no gods...

...IS AN ERROR.

Either might be totally correct...and one almost certainly IS CORRECT.

We do not know which is correct.

IF...please note thatIF you are asserting either is an error...that assertion is just a guess.

I have never said that a blind guess that there is at least one god...or that there are no gods... — Frank Apisa

I do see that. The point is, to make any assertion to "does exist", "doesn't exist" is wrong, in error. We don't know, that was the point. It is unknown. Yes, either might be correct, neither might be correct we can apply all the combinations of either. But as soon as we say, "something is", there is the error. Or we say "IF" we are already presuming a position (we took one step into transgression)... or if we say, "probability of" (again, a footstep into transgression) its still presuming and therefore taking a position, when the truth is, the position is, "no position".

IF...please note thatIF you are asserting either is an error...that assertion is just a guess. — Frank Apisa

I'm not asserting either (true/false) but I highlighted where a creator could be found using reason (null). Not that we found a creator or proved one. Rather we proved there was a reasonable place where we might find one, and so the assertion of "definitely no creator" could not be true (neither true nor false).

and one almost certainly IS CORRECT. — Frank Apisa

Here lies the error, the assumption. That statement itself shows "not atheist". So I'm glad to see you do have faith! :)

Look at both your statements here, they are really saying the same thing aren't they? So I certainly do see it. — Antidote

They are not contradicting each other, I don´t know what your point is.

YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
Never in million years. Make that a billion years. — Frank Apisa

As I said, I can not help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems, so please stop trying to argue.

They are not contradicting each other, — Nobeernolife

Absolutely right, I didn't say the were contradictory. I said they were the same, on which point it looks like we agree.

Does it not look like we all have faith here? Or I have missed something? We cannot argue if we agree.

311Not sure of what that "you have faith" stuff was all about...but if you think I am guessing that there is a god or that there are no gods...

...YOU ARE WRONG.

Here is my take on the issue:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Nobeernolife
313
YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
Never in million years. Make that a billion years.
— Frank Apisa

As I said, I can not help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems, so please stop trying to argue. — Nobeernolife

I am not arguing...merely trying to get through the concrete in your head.

Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension. You simply are making no sense.

I do not know if gods exist or not; — Frank Apisa

True, same as the rest of us.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible; — Frank Apisa

Already, in a slightly clever way making a presumption that "creator exists"

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa

Sort of true as the statement is a little woolly.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

True.

So it's statement 2 that "suggests" you do, or might do.

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Opps, done it again. Now you assumed there isn't. So an assertion, so in error. Remember, the truth is "don't know". :)

Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension. — Frank Apisa

OK, boomer...