Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:29
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well.
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?
It could. But since the forum is not continuous it really doesn't matter which thread it continues in as long as it doesn't sprawl across the whole forum in multiple simultaneous threads like last time.
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:32
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that.
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
I'm assuming the creator is uncreated, as you're assuming time and space are uncreated. Why would you angrily fight against a personal belief of mine that in no way effects the life of anybody, including myself honestly. What you're pushing isn't science. It's outside the realm of science.
Why should I be angry? I'm merely disagreeing with your statements.
"The creator is uncreated" - sorry, but that's simply another way of saying "We don't know who created the creator, so let's assume that it didn't need to be created.". But wasn't your whole point of assuming a creator to explain the creation of the universe? Again Occam's Razor suggests that it's more likely that the universe simply sprung into existence, than that an ominous creator sprung into existence and then created the universe.
BTW: If something is outside the realm of science, it's also outside the realm of religion. Meaning that religion is not any more qualified to explain it. Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:35
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That sort of thinking is very contrary to the rational human I believe. Before science enters a realm traditionally philosophers have probed those issues and developed their own pseudo-scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that. My point isn't that science has not gone there, but that it is outside the realm of science. I could be proven wrong on that fact of course, but that would be shocking.
I'm not trying to start a fight as well, push all you want. If my views aren't challenged they won't be refined.
Well, there are plenty of human traits that naturally lead us to do things such as question, but that is why Science exists, in a lot of ways. Yes, philosophers questioned things first, but it ultimately led to science taking it all a step further and proving/disproving our notions on how everything in the universe works, and while something as practical and no-nonsense as science is may never approach the question of life with the same romantic spin on it the philosophers do, I still consider the two linked in many ways. Science is merely picking up where philosophy left off (in certain areas!), and as you said, there used to be pseudo-science on things before real science came along and defined it. But once the real answers were revealed in such cases, the scientific explanation grew to be accepted.
Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly believe in your heart that God (in any form) will someday be proved to be real? If so, I think it's fair to say that science would be the only way such a case could realistically be made. However, if you don't believe god will ever be proved, you would also have to admit that it would be as a result of science never uncovering it. To me, if science cannot prove something, it isn't true. That's probably too one-dimensional of me, but there it is. You belong to the school of thought where you choose to personally believe in something else until science comes along and disproves it. I belong to the school of thought in which I admit that I have no idea what is out there until smarter people explain it to me. And I'm okay with that. (Admitting that you in fact know not much of anything at all ties into the socratic method of thought, of course. There's some philosophy, for ya )
I love philosophy. I find it very interesting and have often toyed with the idea of studying it academically and perhaps practicing it professionally. There is nothing wrong with looking at the world from such a perspective, but I accept philosophy as a bunch of ideas, notions and mindsets. Philosophy and science go hand-in-hand these days, anyway. You don't see Ken Wilber denying evolution to be true (at least, i don't think he would say such a thing). He does feel that modern science is 'narrow' and 'limiting', but at the same time, philosophy is still about asking questions, while science is about answering them. Perhaps I'm all wrong and ignorant, but that seems to be what it comes down to.
David Hume apparently proved mathematically that the typical questions philosophers ask are impossible to answer logically or scientifically. So in that sense, I suppose you are right: this type of stuff IS outside the realm of science. From a skeptic's point of view, I guess that means asking these types of questions (does God exist?) are pointless. If all a person wants is hard evidence, then I agree with that. I used to be much more open to things, but I got tired of all the uncertainty and contradictions. I still don't see the logical point of choosing to believe in a sky god simply because science has yet to come up with all the answers. From a philosophical standpoint it makes sense, but from a practical one, it does not. To me, anyway.
I'm sorry to get so hung up on the philosophy point, as I probably botched it all anyhow. But since you brought it up, i felt like talking about it.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:37
seventhsojourn wrote:
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
Regardless of that other thread: Of course I don't expect any religious person to come forward and present any new, decisive argument in favor of their religion - I don't think there is any. But still, the question posed is "is it settled", and indeed a religious person might come forward and say "there are no good reasons for my belief". You never know! Another possibility would be someone objecting to the video, and arguing that one of the arguments that it claims are refuted is actually valid. In either case an interesting discussion might ensue, so I don't see why the thread should be closed.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:37
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well.
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?
It could. But since the forum is not continuous it really doesn't matter which thread it continues in as long as it doesn't sprawl across the whole forum in multiple simultaneous threads like last time.
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
How is discussing rationality over superstition anything AT ALL like making sexist assumptions?
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:41
BaldJean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I don't have any particular concept of God - but of course I usually argue against the Monotheistic/Anthropomorphic God, so I know what you're referring to. But that doesn't mean that I agree with your concept. If one said that "God" is simply the world we live in (including ourselves), then I would agree that it exists - but I would wonder why it should be called "God".
BTW: How can you be so sure that you know what God really is?
because I have experienced him (I dislike the pronoun) quite simple. I had a so-called "mystic experience", something which is of course sneered at by scientists because it is not repeatable in a laboratory environment
Of course it's repeatable - by stimulating a particular area of the brain. Well, not the exact thing that you remember, but you would have another "mystic" experience.
Another reason to distrust the argument from revelation.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:41
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that.
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
I'm assuming the creator is uncreated, as you're assuming time and space are uncreated. Why would you angrily fight against a personal belief of mine that in no way effects the life of anybody, including myself honestly. What you're pushing isn't science. It's outside the realm of science.
Why should I be angry? I'm merely disagreeing with your statements.
"The creator is uncreated" - sorry, but that's simply another way of saying "We don't know who created the creator, so let's assume that it didn't need to be created.". But wasn't your whole point of assuming a creator to explain the creation of the universe? Again Occam's Razor suggests that it's more likely that the universe simply sprung into existence, than that an ominous creator sprung into existence and then created the universe.
BTW: If something is outside the realm of science, it's also outside the realm of religion. Meaning that religion is not any more qualified to explain it. Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right?
Why is my explanation more complicated than saying the universe just sprang into existence? Just saying that is a cop out. You need to describe a mechanism by which that would happen.
How so? Science requires the ability to test and to prove. Religion not any of those things. It's not outside the realm of religion.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:42
jampa17 wrote:
Oh really? you said that "the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility" and I answer that chances for something to happen are just that, chances. the you said that people "disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea" and I tell you back that there's nothing conclusive about creation, for none of the sides, we don't know, you especially claims that you don't know and here is where my point is: you can just make inferences, not conclussions. At least theists, again, don't claim to know, we just hope...
Oh, I miss the point again...!!!
I'm not trying to offend you, here, but it's very obvious that English is not your first language, and it's honestly making it difficult for me to communicate with you. I already explained my case against everything you're trying to argue against me with, and since you obviously didn't grasp it before, I wouldn't be able to rephrase it any better a second time. Maybe someone here with more patience/better ways with words could try and explain our position more clearly to you. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't explain my position any clearer than I already have. If you honestly can't see the sense in my position, then debating further isn't going to help.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:49
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
Regardless of that other thread: Of course I don't expect any religious person to come forward and present any new, decisive argument in favor of their religion - I don't think there is any. But still, the question posed is "is it settled", and indeed a religious person might come forward and say "there are no good reasons for my belief". You never know! Another possibility would be someone objecting to the video, and arguing that one of the arguments that it claims are refuted is actually valid. In either case an interesting discussion might ensue, so I don't see why the thread should be closed.
For clarity, I didn't ask the thread to be closed. However, I think this thread can only go one way.
Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:52
jampa17 wrote:
80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...
Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right...
Sorry, but from your post I gather that you expect science to have answers for everything. In fact scientists are the first to admit that we have much to learn. In contrast, religious people claim to know everything they need to know. Most of the scientific advances we have had in known history were made against the strong resistance of - religion!
Instead of believing and hoping to be right, I would rather try to find out what's happening. And as far as the afterlife is concerned: There's no way to find out until you're dead. Do you really think that assuming that you'll somehow ascend to heaven as a reward for doing what the book says - do you really think that this improves your life?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:53
seventhsojourn wrote:
Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.
Well, then as soon as you've said that, you've already one, haven't you? Because that's foolproof. ''We don't need to have a good reason. We just believe it.'' Well, fine, but then don't in the same breath try and debate me in here and expect to be taken seriously.
Believers who debate non-believers must feel like they DO in fact have a good reason to believe, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to debate. Likewise, if someone jumps into this thread and starts arguing with us, it must be because they think they can somehow explain why they believe what they do. Otherwise, what would be the point in joining the conversation?
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:54
JLocke wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well.
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?
It could. But since the forum is not continuous it really doesn't matter which thread it continues in as long as it doesn't sprawl across the whole forum in multiple simultaneous threads like last time.
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
How is discussing rationality over superstition anything AT ALL like making sexist assumptions?
(Quote=the llama73)
I think this is a rather insulting thread, and this is coming from an agnostic. Obviously theists don't believe their arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Your basic premise in your opening question is "I'm right and you're wrong so what do you think about that?" It doesn't seem like you want to have a real conversation, you just want to make fun of people you view as stupid.
All the logic and science in the world is not going to convince a theist that he is wrong, but it's not an issue which is governed by logic. It is one that comes from personal experience. Why don't you let others hold their beliefs, just as you are free to hold yours, without going out of your way to mock them? If you want to make the world a better place, you might start with a little respect for others. (Quote)
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:55
seventhsojourn wrote:
JLocke wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well.
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?
It could. But since the forum is not continuous it really doesn't matter which thread it continues in as long as it doesn't sprawl across the whole forum in multiple simultaneous threads like last time.
I don't see much difference between this kind of thread and the equally offensive ''Do Women Like Prog?'' sort of threads, which always seem to get closed.
How is discussing rationality over superstition anything AT ALL like making sexist assumptions?
(Quote=the llama73)
I think this is a rather insulting thread, and this is coming from an agnostic. Obviously theists don't believe their arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Your basic premise in your opening question is "I'm right and you're wrong so what do you think about that?" It doesn't seem like you want to have a real conversation, you just want to make fun of people you view as stupid.
All the logic and science in the world is not going to convince a theist that he is wrong, but it's not an issue which is governed by logic. It is one that comes from personal experience. Why don't you let others hold their beliefs, just as you are free to hold yours, without going out of your way to mock them? If you want to make the world a better place, you might start with a little respect for others. (Quote)
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:58
seventhsojourn wrote:
Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.
But why is it that in any other domain believing something without good reason is criticized, except for religion? I don't see why religion should get a free ride in that regard.
People look at me cross eyed when I wear the Vibram Five Fingers shoes, but if I told them that I believe that the communion wafer *is* the body of Christ, and that I need to eat it in order to cleanse myself of sin, they would never dare to day anything. Strange world.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:58
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That sort of thinking is very contrary to the rational human I believe. Before science enters a realm traditionally philosophers have probed those issues and developed their own pseudo-scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that. My point isn't that science has not gone there, but that it is outside the realm of science. I could be proven wrong on that fact of course, but that would be shocking.
I'm not trying to start a fight as well, push all you want. If my views aren't challenged they won't be refined.
Well, there are plenty of human traits that naturally lead us to do things such as question, but that is why Science exists, in a lot of ways. Yes, philosophers questioned things first, but it ultimately led to science taking it all a step further and proving/disproving our notions on how everything in the universe works, and while something as practical and no-nonsense as science is may never approach the question of life with the same romantic spin on it the philosophers do, I still consider the two linked in many ways. Science is merely picking up where philosophy left off (in certain areas!), and as you said, there used to be pseudo-science on things before real science came along and defined it. But once the real answers were revealed in such cases, the scientific explanation grew to be accepted.
Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly believe in your heart that God (in any form) will someday be proved to be real? If so, I think it's fair to say that science would be the only way such a case could realistically be made. However, if you don't believe god will ever be proved, you would also have to admit that it would be as a result of science never uncovering it. To me, if science cannot prove something, it isn't true. That's probably too one-dimensional of me, but there it is. You belong to the school of thought where you choose to personally believe in something else until science comes along and disproves it. I belong to the school of thought in which I admit that I have no idea what is out there until smarter people explain it to me. And I'm okay with that. (Admitting that you in fact know not much of anything at all ties into the socratic method of thought, of course. There's some philosophy, for ya )
It's not only that I don't think God can be proved, but that the concept clearly can't be proved. I would say your view is way too narrow. Provability is ideal, but not always the case. I'm as uneasy about results such as Godel's and quantum mechanical realities as anybodies, but they do exist. Provability, even certainty, are simply not universal realities in our world. Is that a reason that science should be diminished in anyway? No not at all. Its also no more of a reason to make religion seem more plausible. Religion is safely left to realms science can't answer, which at this point are very few, far too few than organized religions will probably want to be confined to, but there are still areas free for speculation.
I love philosophy. I find it very interesting and have often toyed with the idea of studying it academically and perhaps practicing it professionally. There is nothing wrong with looking at the world from such a perspective, but I accept philosophy as a bunch of ideas, notions and mindsets. Philosophy and science go hand-in-hand these days, anyway. You don't see Ken Wilber denying evolution to be true (at least, i don't think he would say such a thing). He does feel that modern science is 'narrow' and 'limiting', but at the same time, philosophy is still about asking questions, while science is about answering them. Perhaps I'm all wrong and ignorant, but that seems to be what it comes down to.
David Hume apparently proved mathematically that the typical questions philosophers ask are impossible to answer logically or scientifically. Do you have a reference to this? I can't imagine the framework for a mathematical proof of this existing at his time. So in that sense, I suppose you are right: this type of stuff IS outside the realm of science. From a skeptic's point of view, I guess that means asking these types of questions (does God exist?) are pointless. If all a person wants is hard evidence, then I agree with that. I used to be much more open to things, but I got tired of all the uncertainty and contradictions. I still don't see the logical point of choosing to believe in a sky god simply because science has yet to come up with all the answers. From a philosophical standpoint it makes sense, but from a practical one, it does not. To me, anyway. I agree none of these types of considerations make much practical sense. Who cares though? Practicality is a very restrictive thing. Your mind shouldn't be bound by it.
I'm sorry to get so hung up on the philosophy point, as I probably botched it all anyhow. But since you brought it up, i felt like talking about it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: July 06 2010 at 14:06
JLocke wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.
Well, then as soon as you've said that, you've already one, haven't you? Because that's foolproof. ''We don't need to have a good reason. We just believe it.'' Well, fine, but then don't in the same breath try and debate me in here and expect to be taken seriously.
Believers who debate non-believers must feel like they DO in fact have a good reason to believe, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to debate. Likewise, if someone jumps into this thread and starts arguing with us, it must be because they think they can somehow explain why they believe what they do. Otherwise, what would be the point in joining the conversation?
I'm not interested in winning/losing any argument... for me there is no argument... live and let live. I'm just trying to point out that the OP seems to make an assumption that theists are wrong, and has misrepresented them as I stated above. The OP asks theists to present good arguments, then later says he didn't expect to get any! Sorry, I don't get the point of that.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: July 06 2010 at 14:12
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
seventhsojourn wrote:
Re this comment in your earlier post: Christians claim to know what happens when we die - but can they provide any good reason that they're right? I think you're misrepresenting Christians who do not claim to know, but to believe... and therefore don't in fact need any good reason.
But why is it that in any other domain believing something without good reason is criticized, except for religion? I don't see why religion should get a free ride in that regard.
People look at me cross eyed when I wear the Vibram Five Fingers shoes, but if I told them that I believe that the communion wafer *is* the body of Christ, and that I need to eat it in order to cleanse myself of sin, they would never dare to day anything. Strange world.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: July 06 2010 at 14:20
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That sort of thinking is very contrary to the rational human I believe. Before science enters a realm traditionally philosophers have probed those issues and developed their own pseudo-scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that. My point isn't that science has not gone there, but that it is outside the realm of science. I could be proven wrong on that fact of course, but that would be shocking.
I'm not trying to start a fight as well, push all you want. If my views aren't challenged they won't be refined.
Well, there are plenty of human traits that naturally lead us to do things such as question, but that is why Science exists, in a lot of ways. Yes, philosophers questioned things first, but it ultimately led to science taking it all a step further and proving/disproving our notions on how everything in the universe works, and while something as practical and no-nonsense as science is may never approach the question of life with the same romantic spin on it the philosophers do, I still consider the two linked in many ways. Science is merely picking up where philosophy left off (in certain areas!), and as you said, there used to be pseudo-science on things before real science came along and defined it. But once the real answers were revealed in such cases, the scientific explanation grew to be accepted.
Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly believe in your heart that God (in any form) will someday be proved to be real? If so, I think it's fair to say that science would be the only way such a case could realistically be made. However, if you don't believe god will ever be proved, you would also have to admit that it would be as a result of science never uncovering it. To me, if science cannot prove something, it isn't true. That's probably too one-dimensional of me, but there it is. You belong to the school of thought where you choose to personally believe in something else until science comes along and disproves it. I belong to the school of thought in which I admit that I have no idea what is out there until smarter people explain it to me. And I'm okay with that. (Admitting that you in fact know not much of anything at all ties into the socratic method of thought, of course. There's some philosophy, for ya )
It's not only that I don't think God can be proved, but that the concept clearly can't be proved. I would say your view is way too narrow. Provability is ideal, but not always the case. I'm as uneasy about results such as Godel's and quantum mechanical realities as anybodies, but they do exist. Provability, even certainty, are simply not universal realities in our world. Is that a reason that science should be diminished in anyway? No not at all. Its also no more of a reason to make religion seem more plausible. Religion is safely left to realms science can't answer, which at this point are very few, far too few than organized religions will probably want to be confined to, but there are still areas free for speculation.
Well, if we are going to look at the whole thing from outside of science anyway, there essentially IS no argument. I think the only difference here is perspective. I am choosing to view this particular debate from a scientific viewpoint almost exclusively, and you are not. If I were coming at it from a more romantic, philosophical angle, I doubt we would have been debating at all.
I have no issue with questioning, theorizing and throwing out thought-provoking alternatives . . . as long as they are hypothetical or academic in nature. However, religious people want to call us non-believers closed-minded and 'wrong'. I simply cannot accept that. If we are going to speak in absolutes, let's allow the folks with the better reason to do so speak out.
I love philosophy. I find it very interesting and have often toyed with the idea of studying it academically and perhaps practicing it professionally. There is nothing wrong with looking at the world from such a perspective, but I accept philosophy as a bunch of ideas, notions and mindsets. Philosophy and science go hand-in-hand these days, anyway. You don't see Ken Wilber denying evolution to be true (at least, i don't think he would say such a thing). He does feel that modern science is 'narrow' and 'limiting', but at the same time, philosophy is still about asking questions, while science is about answering them. Perhaps I'm all wrong and ignorant, but that seems to be what it comes down to.
David Hume apparently proved mathematically that the typical questions philosophers ask are impossible to answer logically or scientifically. Do you have a reference to this? I can't imagine the framework for a mathematical proof of this existing at his time.
So in that sense, I suppose you are right: this type of stuff IS outside the realm of science. From a skeptic's point of view, I guess that means asking these types of questions (does God exist?) are pointless. If all a person wants is hard evidence, then I agree with that. I used to be much more open to things, but I got tired of all the uncertainty and contradictions. I still don't see the logical point of choosing to believe in a sky god simply because science has yet to come up with all the answers. From a philosophical standpoint it makes sense, but from a practical one, it does not. To me, anyway. I agree none of these types of considerations make much practical sense. Who cares though? Practicality is a very restrictive thing. Your mind shouldn't be bound by it.
Hey, as mentioned earlier, I'm not opposed to diving into philosophy further at some point, and accepting it for what it is (thought-provoking ideas and propositions), I'll never have a problem with. However, this thread is all about whether or not a theist can defend herself against a rationalist with new evidence that hasn't already been refuted. As long as the situation is presented in such a black-and-white manner, I'll be on the atheist's side every time.
I'm sorry to get so hung up on the philosophy point, as I probably botched it all anyhow. But since you brought it up, i felt like talking about it.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: July 06 2010 at 14:24
seventhsojourn wrote:
I'm not interested in winning/losing any argument... for me there is no argument... live and let live. I'm just trying to point out that the OP seems to make an assumption that theists are wrong, and has misrepresented them as I stated above. The OP asks theists to present good arguments, then later says he didn't expect to get any! Sorry, I don't get the point of that.
My assumption is that Theists have no good arguments for their positions ... that's slightly different from assuming that they're wrong. Furthermore, as I also said above, even if they fail to present good arguments, I'm still interested in their reactions to the video, or to the claim that all these arguments are refuted. And after all, of course I might be wrong. This is not about me wanting to "win" discussions, I merely enjoy discussing these topics.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:29
)
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
