|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2005 : 09:16:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But while we're on the subject of proof for complex subjects, can you prove that the universe is 15 billion years old (or whatever)?
Now, here is one of those false dichotomies that religious people are incapable of identifying.
There exist no "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old. There never will be "proof" within a reasonable time.
There is a scientific theory (a theory that is currently the best available description of reality) with supporting evidence. This evidence is not absolute, nor is the theory itself absolute, as the the word "proof" is demanding.
Thus asking for "proof" is to present a false dichotomy, that cannot be answered without accepting the dichotomy. I'm not willing to do that, because as a skeptic, I find all scientific theories pending, possibly subject to change as new evidence demands revision of the theory.
The closest thing you get is "overwhelming evidence", as in the theory of gravity or theory of evolution (where evolution is far more complex that gravity, but with overwhelming evidence none the less).
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 11:08:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But what if the divine being didn't want to be contacted en mass? What you do if (assuming that you are a rational, mentally stable individual) Jesus appeared before you and said "Here I am, I exist, go preach my word" and then disappeared? Would you chalk that up to spontaneous, temporary mental insanity? Or perhaps the CIA? Or aliens? Would you even give an honest consideration to the possibility that your vision was authentic?
Then your divine being is malevolent, and wants you to be ridiculed.
For this paragraph I'll grant you the existence of jesus:
If Jesus showed up and said to you, "Here I am, I exist, go preach my word", why wouldn't he just show up to everyone? Being omnipotent and all, it doesn't seem like a stretch.
Also, if your god specially created all of us, then surely he intended that we apply this power of reason he has given us? Should we just believe any old unevidenced nonsense that comes along and proclaim we are right, righteous, and all others are wrong?
quote:
Hm, perhaps I misunderstood you (and furshur). Would either of you say that there are reasons to believe that a being exists which is not bound by the laws of physics as we know them?
No. Just as there is no reason to think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) exists.
quote:
But while we're on the subject of proof for complex subjects, can you prove that the universe is 15 billion years old (or whatever)?
There is a significant ammount of evidence which supports that as an aproximate age for the universe. As Dr Mab has said, that estimate is subject to change with the addition of new data. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, except in some cases with mathematics.
But, from a laymans point of view, you can easily say that the age of the universe has been prooven to be billions of years old.
quote:
I could just as easily say that you (and people like you) need the idea of a god to be false so that you don't have to be morally accountable to it.
Morality is subjective. A simple examination of human history should "prove" that beyond any reasonable doubt.
FFS hippy, do you even know that the single largest evangelical church in the US (the Southern Baptist Convention) was founded to provide biblical support for the keeping of slaves?
I find the claim that the source of morality is your god.... to be laughably ridiculous.
We determine morality, not your divine being. And it is 100% subjective.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 11:31:00 [Permalink]
|
Beskeptigal:
quote:
One point not mentioned here is these supposed supernatural events usually can't even be shown to have happened.
And I would consider that evidence against any religion which claimed that the supernatural revealed itself to humanity in general on a regular basis.
quote:
Research on prayer isn't turning up much in the way of results.
Specify "much".
quote:
Benny Henn isn't really curing anyone.
So therefore no one has ever really been cured?
quote:
There isn't any evidence for ghosts or magical creation of crop circles.
That does not concern me.
quote:
Lots of people believe these supernatural things occur on a regular basis but I challenge that assumption.
So do I.
quote:
And, what, the Catholic Church decided to recognize a spontaneous remission of a tumor or two as miracles? ... Most of them are never supported by evidence when investigated. The church isn't even going to investigate the latest crying blood statue because the rest have all been fakes.
I believe that the Catholic Church (the hierarchy, not the common people) is the Whore of Babylon. Don't bother trying to group me them.
quote:
Shouldn't there be thousands of spontaneous remissions and miracle cures considering how many people pray?
That assumes that everyone's prayers are effectual.
Mabuse:
quote:
In 'a' there are many supernatural beings, one for each group. Every being is denouncing each other. Very competitive, not highly moral, and demands the assumption that there are more than one supernatural being.
I do not see how this has any direct bearing on whether or not these beings exist (playing devil's advocate here). Maybe the beings are competitive and immoral. And if one supernatural being is possible, why not more than one?
quote:
In 'b' there is only one being, manifested differently according to the culture of each group, and each group claiming everyone else but them are mistaken. If there was a supernatural entity, it surely would have pointed out that It has contacted everyone as well.
Actually, there are many groups which do claim that they're only following an aspect of truth, or truth as they see it. I think that the Hindus and Buddhists might fall into this category. But you do still have a point. If option 'b' were correct then only those religions which claimed that they only held an aspect of truth could be valid. Any which claimed that they held absolute truth would have to be discarded.
quote:
In 'c' there is no supernatural entity, and all people are equally mistaken.
Yes.
quote:
In 'd' there is the assumption that one group is fundamentally different than all the others. People are people, why should one group be set apart from the rest?
At the moment, the only religions that I can think of which claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (if you don't mind, I think I'll take this inquiry out of a theoretical world and put it into the perspective of this world). All of these religions teach that, at one time, every person on the face of the planet knew who the Creator was and that afterwards people rejected Him and formed their own myths. So, in answer to your question, these religions teach that one group was not originally set apart from the rest, but that the group which held to the belief in the Creator was later set apart from the rest in order to bring the other people back into the true belief.
quote:
To me it is obvious that 'c' is the most logical answer. If calls for the least number of assumptions,...
Actually, in each response that you gave, you only listed one assumption per response. We could think of more assumptions (although we do hope to whittle down the assumptions that we have to make). For instance, 'c' also assumes that human nature is such that every uneducated human desires to know the great mysteries of life, and to have a belief in a being to which it has to be morally accountable. I know lots of uneducated people, and I know that many of them don't give a rat's ass about the great mysteries of life, and most of them have no desire whatsoever for a being which they have to be morally accountable to. If 'c' were correct, shouldn't there have been some ancient atheist or agnostic civilizations? Do you know of any? I sure don't.
To all:
quote:
There exist no "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old. There never will be "proof" within a reasonable time.
I realize this, and so long as I am not asked to provide observable, tangible evidence to you that a divine being exists, I will not ask any of you to provide "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old (unless you demand that I believe that the universe is 15 billion years old, but I don't think that you'll do that). If any of you want "proof" of the supernatural, then by definition, you have to have a supernatural experience. Note: I am not demanding that any of you currently accept a belief in the supernatural; I am demanding that you open your mind to the possibility of it.
CLARIFICATION NOTICE TO EVERYONE:
From now on in this thread, when I talk about science I am including the science of god. Understand that this science is closer to, say, political or legal science than it is to phy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 11:59:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Val:
quote:
Which makes it (theology) unscientific and merely a philosophy...
There are more sciences besides the natural ones. As I said, theology is closer to political or legal science than it is to physics. Anecdotes are considered evidence in a court of law.
But it is not science. It's philosophy where there are no solid truth values that can be supported by empirical evidence. There is no such thing as legal science, either. It's law, not legal science. Political science refers to empirical evidence of the effect of political campaigns. It does not refer to the substance of political campaign's claims. A well groomed candidate tends to get more votes than an unkempt one. Empirically provable through experimentation.
Evidentiary law is a lot more permissive than the empirical evidence that science requires. Court proceedings do not usually contian the scientific method.
Also the quoted text refers to the "science of God" comment.
quote:
quote:
...and assigns intent to natural occurring phenomenon.
But this is not the only thing which theology claims, and I do not attempt to prove theology through assigning intent to "naturally" occuring phenomenon.
Hippy
quote:
Which makes it unscientific and merely a philosophy which assumes the temporal existance of a theological construct and assigns intent to natural occurring phenomenon. Much like trying to change one's life behaviors because one got too close to gasoline fumes with a lit match and attributing it to God's wrath. There is no science in the "science of God".
You left out the modifying bolded text. The "science of God" assumes the existance of a theological construct and determines "natural" and "unnatural" based on conjecture and dogmatic theological musings instead of any evidence by the alledged theological construct itself. It isn't even hearsay. It's opinion submitted as fact. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:07:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But it is not science. It's philosophy...
Can we please retain the difference between Philosophy and a philosophy in this discussion? Religion is not Philosophy, theology is to an extent - although in order to defend the concept of god, theologians are forced to back into logical corners and posit exceptions to the logical laws, meaning that it is no longer systematic and therefore not Philosophy, but I digress - and it is and insult to philosophers to call religion philosophy.
Philosophy is based upon reason, religion is based upon psychosis faith.
quote:
It is quite relevant. How do you know that a divine being is authentic?
1. The way it treats you; as an inferior.
2. It tells you that it is authentic.
3. The way you react to its presence; by falling on your face and pleading for your soul.
If you kowtow in front of some 'speerit' this is not evidence that the entity is supernatural, it is evidence that you are a very tragic figure. If I ever kowtow to someone, that is not evidence for their divinity, it is evidence of me being sardonic.
Honestly, there is no possible evidence that could possibly prove something supernatural, as as soon as it occurs it is proven to be natural.
There is a very good reason that the supernatural does not occur, and this reason is that the supernatural is defined as that which can't happen.
And even if we allow for the existence of fairies, since we have no evidence for their existence whatsoever is it not equally reasonable to believe in 'Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo' as in yahwe? Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds, meaning that they are relative to their proponent - as opposed to reason which is universal - and therefore all proposistions are equally valid. This is the lesson of the Flying Spaghetti Monster www.venganza.org |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:43:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
CLARIFICATION NOTICE TO EVERYONE:
From now on in this thread, when I talk about science I am including the science of god. Understand that this science is closer to, say, political or legal science than it is to physics; but it is a science nonetheless. With that in mind: [...]
First, there is no such thing as "god-science", other than perhaps as a concept you've invented in order to help assure yourself that your bogeyman is real. Logic and science don't work in a way that supports your beliefs, therefore you continue to try changing them into something that does. So how about from now on, when we talk about science, we don't include the "science of god", until and unless you can define it and demonstrate that it in fact falls within the realms of that which we already understand as science?quote:
quote:
Originally posted by me...
How long would you propose an event be subject to the scientific investigation process before science is abandoned in favor of accepting the event as supernatural? [...]
Your first quote contains a bit of confusion. If through god-science we can prove that an event was caused purely through the will of a divine being, then science has discovered the cause of the event. I do not recommend assuming that an event is supernatural if it is only that natural sciences have not yet found the cause.
My quote wouldn't be so confusing if you'd understand that in order for something to be accepted as supernatural, science has to be set aside. Once the cause of something is understood in scientific terms it isn't magic, even if the cause is the waving of the mighty hand of your favorite (currently considered to be) imaginary being. If that were actually demonstrable, the being would no longer be thought of as imaginary, and the event would cease to be supernatural. As I mentioned above, you do not get the luxury of redefining science simply as a convenience to make your lack of understanding more comfortable.
Keep in mind that we don't know of any supernatural event having ever occurred since the beginning of time. Many occurrences and phenomena have been believed to be of supernatural origin, but were ultimately shown to have purely natural scientific explanations. Many events and phenomena are still even considered "cause unknown". But no event, occurrence, or phenomenon has ever been proved to be caused through the will of a divine being. However, it does beg the question, just what sort of experiment would you propose which might demonstrate that to be the case?
*** edited for clarity |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 12/06/2005 16:51:30 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:45:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But it is not science. It's philosophy...
Can we please retain the difference between Philosophy and a philosophy in this discussion? Religion is not Philosophy, theology is to an extent - although in order to defend the concept of god, theologians are forced to back into logical corners and posit exceptions to the logical laws, meaning that it is no longer systematic and therefore not Philosophy, but I digress - and it is and insult to philosophers to call religion philosophy.
While professional philosophers (those who study philosophy) may consider it an insult, I will continue to refer to religion as a philosophy. Religion assumes the existance of a higher unexplainable power, but also contain a moral code of conduct and existentialist musings.
Or do you have a different classification you'd like me to use? (Something out of the ICD-9-CM, perhaps?  )
quote:
And even if we allow for the existence of fairies, since we have no evidence for their existence whatsoever is it not equally reasonable to believe in 'Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo' as in yahwe? Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds, meaning that they are relative to their proponent - as opposed to reason which is universal - and therefore all proposistions are equally valid. This is the lesson of the Flying Spaghetti Monster www.venganza.org
If we are going to include Pastafarians (those touched by His noodly apendage), why not also include the now warring religions of the IPU and Benevolent Hypnotoad? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 14:54:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...I will continue to refer to religion as a philosophy...
Fine, as long as it is a philosophy in the sense of 'a worldview' rather than Philosophy in the sense of 'The systematic study of the world as a systematic whole'.
quote:
(Something out of the ICD-9-CM, perhaps? )
You have no idea how tempting that sounds... but I know you mean it as irony, and it would be unfair to call religion pathological. Except in extreme cases. Even a schitzophrenic is not considered to have a disease until she herself calls it that, or she becomes a direct threat to herself or to others... we chould extend the same courtesy to fundamentalists. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 16:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Note: I am not demanding that any of you currently accept a belief in the supernatural; I am demanding that you open your mind to the possibility of it.
hippy, you have truly misunderstood the majority of us. What you are saying is that we should abandon reason and substitute faith. If there were a god who created us, I can't imagine a more grevious sin than refusing to use the mental faculties we have been given to rigorously study the universe we live in.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 20:23:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
How do you know that a divine being is authentic?
1. The way it treats you; as an inferior.
2. It tells you that it is authentic.
3. The way you react to its presence; by falling on your face and pleading for your soul.
These are all relevant tests for whether or not a being is divine, and I could probably think of a few more.
Really, you should think of a few more, because those three items quoted above cannot distinguish between God and a schoolyard bully. At least, that's the way my schoolyard bullies acted and made people react.
In another post, you wrote:quote:
I realize this, and so long as I am not asked to provide observable, tangible evidence to you that a divine being exists, I will not ask any of you to provide "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old (unless you demand that I believe that the universe is 15 billion years old, but I don't think that you'll do that).
Note that while we cannot offer "proof" of the universe's age, we can offer reams and reams of evidence which all converges (from multiple scientific disciplines) upon the same 15-billion-year answer. You generally haven't been asked for proof of God, you've been asked for evidence of God. The two are not synonymous.
Note also that even in a court of law, "evidence" and "proof" are not the same thing (otherwise, with evidence in hand, we wouldn't require a trial, ever).
Oh, and hearsay is only considered evidence in court if there is no way for the person who originally made the statements to be present (for example, a murder victim's statements, though hearsay, could be admitted into evidence because there's no other way for the dead to speak). So your "god-science" drifts as far from any "legal science" as it does from physics.quote:
From now on in this thread, when I talk about science I am including the science of god. Understand that this science is closer to, say, political or legal science than it is to physics; but it is a science nonetheless.
A science is a systematic, methodological search for knowledge based upon evidence and testing. What method would you propose for testing "that an event was caused purely through the will of a divine being?" If you can't come up with a method which would reliably reject non-Divine causes, then your "god-science" is very badly named (well, the part after the hyphen, that is). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2005 : 00:27:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Mabuse:
quote:
In 'a' there are many supernatural beings, one for each group. Every being is denouncing each other. Very competitive, not highly moral, and demands the assumption that there are more than one supernatural being.
I do not see how this has any direct bearing on whether or not these beings exist (playing devil's advocate here). Maybe the beings are competitive and immoral. And if one supernatural being is possible, why not more than one?
Indeed, if one exist, then it is in the realm of reason that there may be several. But if one God says that believers of other gods will go to hell, and that other God says, 'no, youre going to my heaven', then who wins? Who makes the determination where we go? My God is stronger than your.
quote:
quote:
In 'b' there is only one being, manifested differently according to the culture of each group, and each group claiming everyone else but them are mistaken. If there was a supernatural entity, it surely would have pointed out that It has contacted everyone as well.
Actually, there are many groups which do claim that they're only following an aspect of truth, or truth as they see it. I think that the Hindus and Buddhists might fall into this category. But you do still have a point. If option 'b' were correct then only those religions which claimed that they only held an aspect of truth could be valid. Any which claimed that they held absolute truth would have to be discarded.
Including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I imagine you are not really considering this option.
quote:
quote:
In 'c' there is no supernatural entity, and all people are equally mistaken.
Yes.
quote:
In 'd' there is the assumption that one group is fundamentally different than all the others. People are people, why should one group be set apart from the rest?
At the moment, the only religions that I can think of which claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (if you don't mind, I think I'll take this inquiry out of a theoretical world and put it into the perspective of this world). All of these religions teach that, at one time, every person on the face of the planet knew who the Creator was and that afterwards people rejected Him and formed their own myths. So, in answer to your question, these religions teach that one group was not originally set apart from the rest, but that the group which held to the belief in the Creator was later set apart from the rest in order to bring the other people back into the true belief.
That's why they are evangelical. But why isn't the Truth(tm) revealed to everyone? I've been a Pentecostal, and my experiences in the church, however powerful they were, turned out to be non-supernatural upon closer and critical analysis. In my experience, revelation of the Truth(tm) does not hold any water in the light of reason and the objective reality. People who get Divine Revelations that actually turns out to be true owe it to either pure luck, or underestimating the power of their own (sometimes unconscious) reason.quote:
quote:
To me it is obvious that 'c' is the most logical answer. If calls for the least number of assumptions,...
Actually, in each response that you gave, you only listed one assumption per response. We could think of more assumptions (although we do hope to whittle down the assumptions that we have to make). For instance, 'c' also assumes that human nature is such that every uneducated human desires to know the great mysteries of life, and to have a belief in a being to which it has to be morally accountable.
I figured my answer referred to religious people only. I agree with Dude. Morality is a subjective construct.
Religious people who believe that Morality(tm) originates from God also tends to assume that atheists are without morality, which is ludicrous. Rather the opposite: Since Atheists think that there is no afterlife, everything we do now really matters because we will not get a second chance for life, while religious people may be dirty bastards while they are alive. Their God promises an afterlife for them, as long as they believe in Jesus in their hearts, and proclaim it to others (Romans 10:9 isn't it?) they'll be saved.
quote:
If 'c' were correct, shouldn't there have been some ancient atheist or agnostic civilizations? Do you know of any? I sure don't.
I can't think of any either. But that doesn't prove anything. I propose that pre-historic humans too had a belief system, and that it originated as a byproduct of the emerging imagination of our evolving ancestors increasing intellectual capacity and self-awareness.
Small children believe that many things are magical until the truth behind it is revealed. That adults have learnt to see beyond the appearance is a product of evolution, something that evolved after the imagination resulted in beliefs in the supernatural.
quote:
To all:
quote:
There exist no "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old. There never will be "proof" within a reasonable time.
I realise this, and so long as I am not asked to provide observable, tangible evidence to you that a divine being exists, I will not ask any of you to provide "proof" that the universe is 15 billion years old (unless you demand that I believe that the universe is 15 billion years old, but I don't think that you'll do that). If any of you want "proof" of the supernatural, then by definition, you have to have a supernatural experience.
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/07/2005 00:34:27 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2005 : 06:36:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
...I will continue to refer to religion as a philosophy...
Fine, as long as it is a philosophy in the sense of 'a worldview' rather than Philosophy in the sense of 'The systematic study of the world as a systematic whole'.
Absolutely. No problem there. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2005 : 12:04:26 [Permalink]
|
| All those answers, HFC, to my points are rather lacking in any subtance. There is little point discussing a conflict in belief with someone who isn't truly listening. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 12:38:18 [Permalink]
|
ATTENTION: CIRCULAR REASONING DISCOVERED
quote:
The "science of God" assumes the existance of a theological construct and determines "natural" and "unnatural" based on conjecture and dogmatic theological musings instead of any evidence by the alledged theological construct itself. It isn't even hearsay. It's opinion submitted as fact.
Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds,...
Logic and science don't work in a way that supports your beliefs, therefore you continue to try changing them into something that does.
Statements like these subscribing to the following circular reasoning:
The supernatural does not exist -> therefore anyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is, at best, appealing to emotion, not reason -> therefore all theology is based on emotion (or lies), and is not actually true -> therefore the supernatural does not exist.
Subjectmatter:
quote:
If you kowtow in front of some 'speerit' this is not evidence that the entity is supernatural,...
Would you please re-examine and/or clarify this statement.
Mack:
quote:
So how about from now on, when we talk about science, we don't include the "science of god", until and unless you can define it and demonstrate that it in fact falls within the realms of that which we already understand as science?
In other words: "the science of the supernatural is unscientific and will remain so until it can be demonstrated to be the science of the natural." If for some reason you became convinced that there was something supernatural out there, how would you study it?
quote:
Once the cause of something is understood in scientific terms it isn't magic, even if the cause is the waving of the mighty hand of your favorite (currently considered to be) imaginary being.
Suppose that I die and wake up in a room and a person there says "Hi, I'm Yahweh. I genetically engineered humanity so that as long as they were alive they transmitted their memories to this little machine that I have here, and now I will continuously repair your new body so that you'll never die." Is that going to bother me in the slightest? Not at all. I'd probably say "Huh, so that's how you did it. Cool."
quote:
Keep in mind that we don't know of any supernatural event having ever occurred since the beginning of time.
Who doesn't know?
Dude:
quote:
hippy, you have truly misunderstood the majority of us. What you are saying is that we should abandon reason and substitute faith. If there were a god who created us, I can't imagine a more grevious sin than refusing to use the mental faculties we have been given to rigorously study the universe we live in.
Not at all. I am saying that you should open your mind up to the fact that things happen which we don't understand, and then open your mind up to the possibility that there may be a personal being behind some of it.
NOTE TO ALL:
This is not the God-of-the-gaps theory; I do not claim that the unexplained proves the existance of a god. The only way to do that is to meet the guy.
Dave:
quote:
Really, you should think of a few more, ...
Gladly.
1) If a divine being comes up to you and says "Hi, I'm a divine being" they usually show their power to some degree. If not, you can challenge them on that.
2) If a divine being tells you that something will happen, it does, usually. For example, Yahweh told Jonah to preach against Ninevah and in forty days it would be destroyed. Ninevah repents, and is spared. Does this disqualify Yahweh? No, because at other times He has also said that He is merciful and forgiving, so there's the unstated premise that they would only be destroyed if they didn't repent.
Would you like more?
quote:
Note that while we cannot offer "proof" of the universe's age, we can offer reams and reams of evidence which all converges (from multiple scientific disciplines) upon the same 15-billion-year answer. You generally haven't been asked for proof of God, you've been asked for evidence of God. The two are not synonymous.
There is reams of evidence of god. All the scriptures of the world point to the existence of some divine being. Pay attention: if there is a being beyond the natural world, but which does contact people, then direct evidence of that being would not come from natural science, it would come from people.
quote:
Oh, and hearsay is only considered evidence in court if there is no way for the person who originally made the statements to be present ...
And there is no reasonable way for Paul the apostle to personally talk to us and tell us about his visions.
quote:
What method would you propose for testing "that an event was caused purely through the will of a divine being?"
I've already mentioned it. What was it?
Mabuse:
quote:
Indeed, if one exist, then it is in the realm of reason that there may be several. But if one God says that believers of other gods will go to hell, and that other God says, 'no, youre going to my heaven', then who wins? Who makes the determination where we go? My God is stronger than your.
Indeed, many religions did test whose gods were more powerful by going to war. Whoever won had more powerful gods. But if these were true, then the gods should still be affecting the wars and the people would still believe in them.
quote:
Including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I imagine you are not really considering this option.
No, originally these religions |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2005 : 14:21:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The supernatural does not exist -> therefore anyone who claims to have had a supernatural experience is, at best, appealing to emotion, not reason -> therefore all theology is based on emotion (or lies), and is not actually true -> therefore the supernatural does not exist.
Ridiculous. No one has made any such claim, and circular reasoning is the least of the logical flaws in the reasoning above. This is truly the mother of all straw men.
quote:
The "science of God" assumes the existance of a theological construct and determines "natural" and "unnatural" based on conjecture and dogmatic theological musings instead of any evidence by the alledged theological construct itself. It isn't even hearsay. It's opinion submitted as fact.
This statement means that 'the science of god' already assumes a god of which there is a science. And further that any data collected within the operation of such a science does not come from the god itself but from the delusions of people.
quote:
Arguments from faith are arguments from emotional grounds,...
Is not a conclusion, it is a premise. Faith is an emotion/feeling; the statement is analytical truth and therefore unequivocal.
quote:
Logic and science don't work in a way that supports your beliefs, therefore you continue to try changing them into something that does.
Criticism of your mode of argument (again). Not an argument for god not existing.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you kowtow in front of some 'speerit' this is not evidence that the entity is supernatural,...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you please re-examine and/or clarify this statement.
Gladly. Again this is an illustration of your use of argument from emotion. Feeling the need to kowtow to something is a feeling. It says nothing about the thing you kowtow to but speaks volumes about yourself. The use of 'speerit' in place of 'spirit' is sarcasm, implying the baseness of the scenario.
The act of worship assumes that the object of the worship is superior to the acolyte. Of course, 'superior' in itself has no meaning, it must be superior for a specific purpose.
If we then allow that you mean a specific, yet undisclosed, purpose that the spirit is superior in then you assume that you yourself exists for that purpose. This implies that you are not treating yourself as an end in yourself but rather an object. Therefore the act of worship is immoral, it is treating someone as an object for a purpose rather than an autonomic end in themselves. Therefore worship is immoral and disgusting.
quote:
In other words: "the science of the supernatural is unscientific and will remain so until it can be demonstrated to be the science of the natural." If for some reason you became convinced that there was something supernatural out there, how would you study it?
Or, in other words: "The science of god is unscientific and will remain so until it is scientific".
I, and anyone with any comprehension of reason, would never become convinced of anything until after I had studied it. Otherwise study of it would be impossible, as the thesis would be assumed before the experiment/argument is even begun.
quote:
1) If a divine being comes up to you and says "Hi, I'm a divine being" they usually show their power to some degree. If not, you can challenge them on that.
Would you like to see me juggle?
quote:
2) If a divine being tells you that something will happen, it does, usually. For example, Yahweh told Jonah to preach against Ninevah and in forty days it would be destroyed. Ninevah repents, and is spared. Does this disqualify Yahweh? No, because at other times He has also said that He is merciful and forgiving, so there's the unstated premise that they would only be destroyed if they didn't repent.
Tomorrow you will do stuff with/to things.
Honestly, being able to predict the future to some degree is easy, the predictions made in the bible (that weren't written down after the event occurred, are less than impressive...
quote:
Suppose that I die and wake up in a room and a person there says "Hi, I'm Yahweh. I genetically engineered humanity so that as long as they were alive they transmitted their memories to this little machine that I have here, and now I will continuously repair your new body so that you'll never die." Is that going to bother me in the slightest? Not at all. I'd probably say "Huh, so that's how you did it. Cool."
Of course, this implies that Yahweh is not god, but some creepy alien dude. It certainly does not deserve your worship and if it actually brings people to life in order that they live in hell, then it would be justified to kill Yahweh in order to prevent this crime from continuing.
quote:
Yes, and it is important to distinguish the true from the false. One way to tell is if reality consistently confirms your vision. If your vision says that can heal anyone simply by saying 'hocus-pocus' and it doesn't happen, then the vision was probably false.
How unfortunate that most visions are not so definate about what they actually say... It is so hard to validate or invalidate things like: 'The end of the world is nigh'
Furthermore that the vision is true is far from sufficient evidence to suggest that it is not a delusion. Knowledge of the truth (the realisation that you can suddenly heal people, for argument's sake) may very well cause the delusion. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 12/08/2005 14:28:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
