Theism and Explanation

Page 8 of 12 [ 191 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Apr 2011, 5:58 pm

NationalSocialist wrote:

Faith, it has this name for a reason.

So that any moron can claim "I R TEH BELIEBER!!" in response to rational criticism of religious ideas?

In any case, this thread is still about theism and explanation. If your God is only justified through faith, then how can you say that we justify any act as an act of God, as opposed to the act of another agent or impersonal force?

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

05 Apr 2011, 6:13 pm

NationalSocialist wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

NationalSocialist wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

NationalSocialist wrote:

One of the things that continues to annoy me about these people is their attempt to dragoon science into the cause of atheism as if science entails atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth If none are trained in metaphysics then the most they can assert is that God can't be spotted by telescope.
Science is metaphysically neutral, always has been, always will be. Questions about the existence or non-existence of God are simply irrelevant to science. There is no science that could ever even raise such questions let alone solve them one way or the other. It's an illegitimate move on their behalf and only shows the weakness in
their position.

Science may be metaphysically neutral, but many of Religions claims take place within our Universe, making them physical claims.

People who actually adhere to the Scientific method need evidence to back their claims, not a mere disability to disprove them. I can't disprove a million gods, but I am no polytheist.

People who evaluate truth in Scientific terms must come to the conclusion that there is (probably) no God.

Can you prove you exist yourself?

Cognito ergo Sum.

If you are looking for a priori type proof that I exist (I presume you mean as a conscious being), I can offer none. Science makes assumptions, the assumption that there are no Cartesian demons, the assumption that physical laws are uniform at every point in space/time based on a finite number of observations. People cannot, not now, not never, get a priori, Absolute knowledge about the universe. Science is just the best, most obvious methodology to obtaining knowledge.

Of course, if you make a demand of me to provide a certain type of evidence, then its only fair I can ask the same.

So tell me, what is your a priori proof for God?

Faith, it has this name for a reason.

No. We are playing the "I demand a ridiculous amount of proof, and offer absolutely none" game. Faith is not A Priori knowledge. Where is your mathematical proof of God, showing him to be true A Priori. Well?

Actually, I'm going to be more reasonable. Lets play by your rules, faith is proof.

What is wrong with Muslim faith? Nothing? If their faith is worth as much as yours, and you believe two different things, then one of your "faiths" is wrong. So faith is worth sweet f**k all, and you know it.

Or maybe there is something wrong with Muslim faith. I blame all their melanin, that and their beards. It climbs up their spinal chord, and deposits itself in their prefrontal cortex, making them delusional. Where is my evidence? Oh silly theist, we don't need evidence, we have ffaaaiiithh!!

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

05 Apr 2011, 6:15 pm

NationalSocialist wrote:

I just want to state that not all of "these people" are atheists. Some of us do believe in God, but recognize that man created the religions. My beliefs are always changing, even if only slightly, because I am constantly learning new things. I choose to believe that God created this existence, and everything in it, including mathematics and the laws of science.. Therefore logic says to me that God would not defy those systems He created. Naive to some, perhaps, but that's the conclusion I came up with using this brain that God gave me.

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

05 Apr 2011, 6:19 pm

NationalSocialist wrote:

Faith, it has this name for a reason.

My son still truly 100% believes in Santa Claus.... that doesn't make it so. Faith is proof of nothing, except that you believe in something... It doesn't magically turn it into concrete truth.

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

05 Apr 2011, 6:35 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:

NationalSocialist wrote:

Faith, it has this name for a reason.

My son still truly 100% believes in Santa Claus.... that doesn't make it so. Faith is proof of nothing, except that you believe in something... It doesn't magically turn it into concrete truth.

Nicely put.

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

05 Apr 2011, 6:52 pm

LKL wrote:

Leejosepho, I'm glad that you got sober and understand the gratitude you feel to AA for helping you get there.

I actually got there in spite of AA.

LKL wrote:

... don't ever feel like you'll fall of the wagon if you lose your faith ...

I am not on any wagon, and "losing faith" would be impossible anyway.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Apr 2011, 3:51 pm

leejosepho wrote:

LKL wrote:

Leejosepho, I'm glad that you got sober and understand the gratitude you feel to AA for helping you get there.

I actually got there in spite of AA.

LKL wrote:

... don't ever feel like you'll fall of the wagon if you lose your faith ...

I am not on any wagon, and "losing faith" would be impossible anyway.

Well, then I have clearly misunderstood the entirety of your point.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

06 Apr 2011, 5:10 pm

LKL wrote:

Well, then I have clearly misunderstood the entirety of your point.

I think it is all best-summarized here:

BurntOutMom wrote:

NationalSocialist wrote:

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Daedelus1138
Raven
Raven

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

07 Apr 2011, 2:56 pm

Bethie wrote:

It's a bit of a contradiction of terms, no?

Once a phenomenon is empirically-observable, it is no longer "super-natural", because of the methodological naturalism of science.

Right... and God is not observable by the tools of science. Neither are many other things. We only know God indirectly, same with things like love and beauty, are they real, or just chemicals in our brain? Some do believe they actually exist, even atheists do, otherwise they shouldn't treat love or beauty seriously at all.

All language about God ultimately is inadequate, religious language about God is always a means to an end. In the case of Christianity, specificly eastern Christianity i am familiar with, it is designed to lead us to a spiritual experience where we know God just as we know another person... we know the effects they have in our life. We cannot exhaust their personhood though in words. Hence the expression "theology is best done on ones knees". You want to know God, go ask Him to reveal Himself to you with an open heart.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Apr 2011, 3:30 pm

Daedelus1138 wrote:

We know about subatomic particles indirectly and inferentially. BUT, the properties attributed to sub-atomic particles are such that we can make quantitative predictions that can be tested (either verified or falsified) by empirical means. Nothing about God leads to quantitative testability. Not a thing.

ruveyn

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

07 Apr 2011, 4:36 pm

Daedelus1138 wrote:

Bethie wrote:

It's a bit of a contradiction of terms, no?

Once a phenomenon is empirically-observable, it is no longer "super-natural", because of the methodological naturalism of science.

The tools of Science are the senses. Things like beauty and love are not beyond the reach of Science; we have a rough idea of where they came from, and why they exist.

Language isn't inadequate, merely there is nothing a theist can do with it to make a coherent argument in favour of God. Funny how most people faith seems to be the faith of those around them, and funny how other people faith is worthless (as they are wrong), while yours is REALLY good. I believe in spiritual experience, but they are explainable in terms of emotion and other naturalistic processes. It doesn't devalue them; it is merely a coherent explanation.

If I was dumb struck tomorrow morning with the feeling that something I have no evidence for was true (like parallel universes, or that there is a small terrier on mars), I would think "wait, I believe this, thoroughly, but I didn't arrive at this conclusion through my usual, objective methodology. I have no evidence for it, yet the feeling wont go away. I'm clearly wrong, I should go to a psychologist..."

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

07 Apr 2011, 5:40 pm

ryan93 wrote:

I believe in spiritual experience, but they are explainable in terms of emotion and other naturalistic processes. It doesn't devalue them; it is merely a coherent explanation.

Earlier today I watched a National Geographic documentary dealing with death, and it included some discussion of so-called "near-death" experiences. The "bright light" and/or "tunnel" people claim to see were explained as predictable brain functions during the death process, and the "feelings" and/or "visions" people had were really not significantly different than those of dreaming. In one presented case, however, a man had "watched from above" while his heart and respiration had been stopped during open-chest surgery, and that man later reported specific things about the operation that he could not have possibly known unless he had actually been present and able to observe at the time.

Honest question having nothing to do with whether or not there is a "God": How would you categorize that in relation to "explainable in terms of emotion and other naturalistic processes"?

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

07 Apr 2011, 5:49 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

I believe in spiritual experience, but they are explainable in terms of emotion and other naturalistic processes. It doesn't devalue them; it is merely a coherent explanation.

We know that brain function continues after heart function and respiration stops. Some would argue that this experience was a dream inspired by things he actually continued to hear and process after "death".

I don't claim to have a theory on this as I am not nearly knowledgeable enough about brain function, merely offer an explanation.

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

07 Apr 2011, 5:50 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

I believe in spiritual experience, but they are explainable in terms of emotion and other naturalistic processes. It doesn't devalue them; it is merely a coherent explanation.

How do I explain it? I'm not sure about that case; I don't know the people involved, I don't know how rigorously this evidence was obtained. I do know that outer body experiences can be experimentally induced, and that "psi" type powers have never been proven under reasonable experimental circumstances. I also know that an experiment has been conducted in an OR, over 20 years (IIRC) in which a piece of paper with writing is placed upon a cabinet, so that if anyone has an outer body experience people should be able to float up and read. No one has replied so far.

In any case, my inability to account for one data point does mean "ha ha, you can't answer, it is unexplainable, God is Real!".

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

07 Apr 2011, 6:04 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:

Some would argue that this experience was a dream inspired by things he actually continued to hear and process after "death".

ryan93 wrote:

... an experiment has been conducted in an OR, over 20 years (IIRC) in which a piece of paper with writing is placed upon a cabinet, so that if anyone has an outer body experience people should be able to float up and read. No one has replied so far.

The story I mentioned would be like that. This man had observed and later reported some specific details and doctor actions (unique and unusual arm movements) neither he nor anyone else could have ever possibly "dreamed up" or whatever.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ZeroGravitas
Velociraptor

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: 40,075 kilometers from where I am

07 Apr 2011, 6:12 pm

leejosepho:

You are talking about proving the existence and actions of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being.

Do you really believe that the anecdote you supplied is going to be persuasive evidence for said omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even if the extraordinary claim is indeed true, it does no help to it to provide mediocre anecdote in attempt to prove it.

Another way to put it: You are trying to prove the existence of what would be the largest and most awesome entity one could imagine. And you are doing it by means no one has ever once considered persuasive.

Yet another way to put it:

Each day for the past 15 years I have said the following aloud: "May God strike me dead with lightning right now." This is about 5,475 instances disproving the existence of God. Would you think I was foolish in trying to prove the nonexistence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent personal being in this way? Damned right. You would be completely unmoved by such a mediocre and downright incompetent appeal to experience.

_________________
This sentance contains three erors.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156929.html - How to annoy me

Page 8 of 12 [ 191 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Jump to:

Theism and Explanation Post Reply New Topic

Theism and Explanation