I am not certain that is entirely accurate. Many on the IGS place upon those who believe in a “god,” the onus to prove that god’s existence. Should they fail to reach that burden, this is taken as evidence for a god’s “non-existence.” However, the inability to provide a proof does not automatically mean something does not exist. For if it did, then by the same token, if the burden of proof is levied upon someone to prove the converse and they fail to do so, then that would be evidence for god’s existence.
Oh your absolutely right. Though I will say it does that no justice when false equivalency is used as examples of proof. No my birth wasn’t a miracle by “god,” it was the product of two young adults not thinking of the consequences of their actions. I am who I am due to my own determination, not as some masterfully crafted being made in some absentee father style diety. Im pretty far from that and that’s what makes me strong.
2 Likes
In science, proper methodology insists on making the fewest assumptions possible. First, you observe the universe. This produces the set of observed data.
Within the set of observed data, many principles and behaviors can be directly observed in operation. At the same time, some things cannot be observed directly, but we know there must be processes involved. For example, stellar formation.
In these cases, hypotheses are created, and tested. Successful theories make testable predictions, and when those predictions are borne out, the theory is given additional strength. Often, in the process of crafting these theories, some intuitive leaps must be made, some assumptions introduced.
However, assumptions which are not required by the set of observed data are discarded. They are not to be used at all, as they explain nothing in the set of observed data, and introduce needless complexity which serves no legitimate purpose.
The Amarr place a considerable amount of important upon the existence of their god—and have done so for all of their recorded history, even predating their recorded transit of the EVE Gate. As a result, it is not unreasonable to believe that had there been any observed data or direct evidence that either demanded or demonstrated the existence of that god in the period before transit, the Amarr would have gone to great lengths to retain records of that data or evidence.
Certainly, if such data or evidence had been found in the centuries since the transit, it would have been retained in a prominent location in the Amarr Scriptures. Thus, we can reasonably be assured that in all of the vast reaches of human history, no such data or evidence has ever existed.
Without that data, without that evidence, any assumption of the existence of this god must be rejected. That’s not a claim that the Amarr god can be conclusively said to be disproved, only that it remains in the same category of creatures like wolves, dragons, or fairies: there is no evidence, and thus, no reason to introduce such a concept to our picture of the universe.
3 Likes
Which simply goes back to applying a higher burden of proof for existence than for non-existence. After all, as a philosopher once said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
An engineer with sufficient skill does not need to constantly tamper with something they produce. They set it in motion and thus it works. For example, a ship’s capacitor, with a modicum of maintenance, can be reliably expected to function the same way from its maiden voyage all the way to its final resting place.
But is it necessary to know the names of the engineers who designed the capacitor system in order to observe it, to modify it, to improve upon its capacity or its rate of recharge? No. Their names may be irrelevant and indeed their existence may be irrelevant, for all that is relevant is that the work exists.
Yet, they did exist.
A creator can exist apart from the observable systems they create. Indeed, a creator of sufficient skill does not need to intervene with the systems they set into motion. A perfect creator even less so.
Not true. It applies the same standard: there is no reason to claim that god can be shown to not exist, either.
It’s similarly impossible to disprove the existence of fairies. Do you believe in fairies?
Yes, and a ship’s capacitor—the observed data—requires a creator, a designer. We have no explanations, even theoretical, for the existence of a ship’s capacitor which rely solely on natural physical processes.
There is no such requirement for god. There are theories which do not rely on the existence of an intelligent, willful outside agent in order to create the universe. These theories line up with mathematical behavior we can infer from the observed data. Any attempt to reach past them to add a ‘first cause’ in order to require the existence of god runs into a self-inflicted problem: if ‘god’ is the ‘first cause’, then where did ‘god’ come from?
There is no argument that establishes that ‘god’ could ‘always have been’ without a prior cause that is not just as valid for a sequence of universes without a ‘god’. ‘God’ is not required to explain the data. God is an addition to the data, and no addition should be entered unless required.
1 Like
The proof is our existence. The end.
6 Likes
And in this, the game becomes zero sum. For the sake of thought experiment, if I said I do believe in fairies, you might ask me to give evidence of their existence. At the same time, I could ask you to give me evidence they did not exist.
Similarly, in YC109 you might have asked the CONCORD defensive fleet in Yulai if they believed the Elder Fleet to exist. And they may have asked you the same, to provide evidence it did not exist.
Even the enigmatic Triglavians fall into this category. Before the appearance of their ships and these abysal deadspace filaments, the same question and its converse may have been asked.
Simply because fairies or god have not chosen to reveal themselves like the Elder Fleet or the Triglavians does not mean they do not exist.
As for your mathematical models, I find the claim intriguing. Yet, while it may be scientifically sound given our current understanding, our scientific understanding is certainly not permanent. Simply because something operates a certain way given our current understanding does not mean that that understanding is infallible.
I believe that the methods of scientific inquiry provide us with tools to better understand what we can observe. But I do not think those same tools guarantee complete understanding.
God does not belong to a people, a people belong to God. The True Amarr were the once that received God’s word first, as they were the ones who were receptive.
God existed long before the True Amarr ever penned the first verse and He will exist after the stars go out. God is not some creation of Amarr clerics. Quite the contrary, they are a creation of His.
Whether or not the faith as practiced by the Nefantar and Starkmanir Tribes could be considered an offshoot of the Amarr faith is a question to ponder. I am not sure of the answer, nor do I think this thread is a good place to discuss it.
3 Likes
Our existence doesn’t require a creator. Life’s a pretty basic chemical process, and evolution is just sex + time.
You could. And I would reply that I don’t have any reason to actively disbelieve in fairies, just like I don’t have reason to actively disbelieve in god. Both a claim of belief and a claim of disbelief are active positions. They are answers to the question ‘what color socks am I wearing?’
I’m not wearing socks. I don’t believe in god. I don’t disbelieve in god. God’s simply a non-issue for me. You might choose to call that agnostic, but agnosticism is a form of atheism. It’s just usually overshadowed by active claims of disbelief. Still, it remains a- theism: a lack of god-belief.
Insisting on the binary proposition is to insist that one must wear socks. There is no reason to invest active belief into the non-existence of god—there is no evidence to support, nor data to require, the non-existence of god. There is also no reason to invest active belief in the existence of god. God is irrelevant, ephemeral, and should be dismissed from consideration. To invest active belief in either a positive or negative direction is to waste effort time and effort solving for a complex figure that will only be multiplied by 0. No matter what it is, the end result will still be ‘0’.
Any scientific model must be able to stand up to continued scrutiny. Each new discovery sheds light on, and calls into question, all prior models. There’s no reason to expect that to change, because that is what science is. Science is not a belief system. It is a methodology. And an integral part of that methodology is ‘always question everything you think you know’.
2 Likes
I should probably allow those wiser than myself to take up this discussion next time.
That proves exactly nothing.
I don’t see why not. Absent a specific thread on the topic, this is the thread that covers the topic.
1 Like
When you find that person, let me know. I have questions.
The jury seems to be out on that point, yet.
1 Like
You all insult your own Matari spiritual heritage with your atheist beliefs.
2 Likes
I may be a heretic but I am not an atheist.
If a belief is so fragile and weak that my saying ‘I find no reason to expend my own energy in holding this belief’ is an insult to it or to those who hold it, rather than a position of simple disagreement, then what does that say about that belief? Why would, for example, @Tyrel_Toov need my validation for his beliefs?
2 Likes
I obviously wasn’t referring to you.
1 Like
Who says I’m an athiest? I only question whether the slaver’s godfigure is real.
2 Likes
Those who who lead such spiritually empty lives, who would spit on even the idea of God – in whatever form He might be perceived in their culture – embrace the greatest sin of all. It shows that even after thousands of years of separation and darkness, you still haven’t learned a damn thing. You still embrace the original rejection, the original apostasy. Arrogant, blind, spiteful. Any faithful worshiper, whether they follow Amarr or Matari spiritualism or the Winds or whatever, is worth a thousand of you.
Because anyone who would do that shows how frail their own spiritual beliefs might be, because the exact same arguments you use against Him, speak also against yours. You’re arguing it according to your biases, not your beliefs. You carelessly launch a bomb to obliterate your enemy, without realizing or caring that your own home is in the blast zone. Utter ■■■■■■■ hypocrisy.
1 Like