Science and knowledge

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Science and knowledge

Is science the only way we can know things?

If not, then why do I need to present scientific evidence for God?  

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Is science the only way we can know things?

If not, then why do I need to present scientific evidence for God?  

Scientific evidence is a way to make everyone rationally thinking on this planet unanimously convinced, without taking away their wits or violating their free will. It is a way of testing things, improving our life standard and increasing our freedom.

Therefore, without scientific evidence for God, God is basically useless and does more harm than good. It sows division and fear among people, it creates imaginary problems and turns away our attention from very real dangers around us.

Therefore, scientific evidence is the best reason for believing in God.
The second best reason is, if you're very old and afraid of death. (but pick a very mild version of God, otherwise you'll fear death much more than before)
The third best reason is, if someone threatens to shoot you, if you won't.
Biblical "reasons" for god belief are somewhere around number 84.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

Luminon wrote:

Scientific evidence is a way to make everyone rationally thinking on this planet unanimously convinced, without taking away their wits or violating their free will. It is a way of testing things, improving our life standard and increasing our freedom.  Therefore, without scientific evidence for God, God is basically useless and does more harm than good. It sows division and fear among people, it creates imaginary problems and turns away our attention from very real dangers around us.

So, your answer is that evidence for God must be scientific, because any other proof of God will cause more harm?  So, for example, we cannot accept a mathematical proof for God even if it's true--simply because accepting it would cause harm?

Or do you define "truth" as applying only to propositions the affirmation of which would produce the least amount of harm?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:So,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So, your answer is that evidence for God must be scientific, because any other proof of God will cause more harm?  So, for example, we cannot accept a mathematical proof for God even if it's true--simply because accepting it would cause harm?

Or do you define "truth" as applying only to propositions the affirmation of which would produce the least amount of harm?

Mathemathics is a science, but one relying on hypothesis and projection, rather than the actual world. Mathemathic proofs don't hurt people. (unless they fail to make them at exams) But there is no guarantee that mathemathical proof of God is possible or real. Mathemathics can validly describe absurd things, for example whole universes which do not contain matter. Therefore, mathemathics nor god do not necessarily follow reality. 

Any other proof than scientific will be necessarily limited to a small group of people or just one person. And you know how much damage can do one or more madmen, going around and claiming without evidence, that they're talking with God. George Bush was the recent one. If God is so powerful, why isn't he apparent to everyone? Why does he bet salvation of billions on help of a middle-eastern carpenter's son? 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Mathemathics

Luminon wrote:

Mathemathics is a science, but one relying on hypothesis and projection, rather than the actual world.

No, it is not a science, unless you use a broader trivializing definition of "science" similar appropriated by creationists (i.e., "creation science&quotEye-wink.  

Quote:
But there is no guarantee that mathemathical proof of God is possible or real.

Have you ever heard of Kurt Godel?

Quote:
If God is so powerful, why isn't he apparent to everyone?

The majority of the world believes in God, or something like God; therefore, your point is moot.  But even if that was not true, what does popularity have to do with power?  


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Is science the only way we can know things? 

Depends on how broadly we're defining science. In my definition, yes, it is the only way.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You can "know" something but

You can "know" something but you shouldn't expect everyone else to just "know" it without some sort of reasoning which science happens to bring to the table.

If you can play on someone's desire then you may skip science collect $200 and go directly to stupid.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:You can "know"

robj101 wrote:

You can "know" something but you shouldn't expect everyone else to just "know" it without some sort of reasoning which science happens to bring to the table.

If you can play on someone's desire then you may skip science collect $200 and go directly to stupid.

 

  Right!

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: Is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Is science the only way we can know things?

Because of the topic, your question as posed is too vague.

"science" "know" and "things" would need qualifiers.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If not, then why do I need to present scientific evidence for God?  

Because it's a scientific claim, otherwise there would be nothing (sic).

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Because of the

redneF wrote:

Because of the topic, your question as posed is too vague.

"science" "know" and "things" would need qualifiers.

I don't have time for semantic merry-go-rounds.  You know what I mean when I say those things; you are merely grandstanding.

Anyway, I've dealt with you before and you are a waste of my time.  You are perhaps the biggest moron on this entire forum--I dare say even more than cj.

Quote:
Because it's a scientific claim, otherwise there would be nothing (sic).

Case in point.

(Note that this is the same guy who admitted in our debate thread that he's had virtually no exposure to any sophisticated discourse on the God issue; he admitted that he just happened upon this stuff recently, so anything he says here is not to be taken seriously.)


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What can we

 

truly know about material reality that is not made comprehensible by testable explanation? Is the existence of a supernatural god the only thing that cannot be explained by the scientific method? What other actual things are there for which you don't require some form of empiricism?

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 

I don't have time for semantic merry-go-rounds.  

I did chuckle. Oh the irony it's heavy and it's light and it big and it's small.

Someone had to ticket that kettle for speeding

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:truly

Atheistextremist wrote:

truly know about material reality that is not made comprehensible by testable explanation? Is the existence of a supernatural god the only thing that cannot be explained by the scientific method? What other actual things are there for which you don't require some form of empiricism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Because of the topic, your question as posed is too vague.

"science" "know" and "things" would need qualifiers.

I don't have time for semantic merry-go-rounds.  You know what I mean when I say those things; you are merely grandstanding.

Anyway, I've dealt with you before and you are a waste of my time.  You are perhaps the biggest moron on this entire forum--I dare say even more than cj.

Quote:
Because it's a scientific claim, otherwise there would be nothing (sic).

Case in point.

(Note that this is the same guy who admitted in our debate thread that he's had virtually no exposure to any sophisticated discourse on the God issue; he admitted that he just happened upon this stuff recently, so anything he says here is not to be taken seriously.)

Ktulu wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Um, phlogiston theory, flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the like were all logically consistent; they were just false.  When you make an error, it is better to just acknowledge it rather than nonsensically trying to polish it.

Aren't you trying to prove that OA is logically consistent? lol, I mean, isn't this your whole freaking point? wtf? talk about refuting yourself....  what's that about making an error?

Well I guess we can't all have the steel trap minds of a true metaphysical genius. Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:No, it

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

No, it is not a science, unless you use a broader trivializing definition of "science" similar appropriated by creationists (i.e., "creation science&quotEye-wink.  

Well, and yet the mathemathics is still called the queen of sciences. The reason is that (unlike creationism, religon and God) it is very useful and damn diffcult to learn.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Have you ever heard of Kurt Godel?
Not much, but if you mean that his The Incompleteness Theorem necessitates God, then it is only argument from ignorance. Or, if you think that the system (Bible) is holy and infallible (consistent), it can not be complete. So what about waiting for another Testament? It will probably shred the New Testament to pieces, just like New Testament did it with Old Testament. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 
Quote:
If God is so powerful, why isn't he apparent to everyone?

The majority of the world believes in God, or something like God; therefore, your point is moot.  But even if that was not true, what does popularity have to do with power?  

Believing is not seeing, it's indoctrination of children. As for power, shouldn't it be apparent to everoyne? What power has God, if he didn't strike by lightning all my blaspheming and witchcrafting friends like in good old times?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm grateful to God for keeping my atomic nuclei together, keeping my atomic bonds and holding me on Earth by gravity. Yes, these are great powers, or better said, forces. And yet they're not easy to notice.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

truly know about material reality that is not made comprehensible by testable explanation? Is the existence of a supernatural god the only thing that cannot be explained by the scientific method? What other actual things are there for which you don't require some form of empiricism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

By this guys way of thinking you know nothing and neither does he. His "five reasons" might sound good to someone who has no fukin clue.

In science there is no supposing, we label and categorize things and it is what we have to work with. If this is not good enough for you then why do you use it every minute of every day. I'm about to "walk" to the "coffee pot" and get a "cup of coffee". Wait it shouldn't be coffee, we labeled that, it should be a brown substance..no wait we made up the term brown and substance. Gee whats a mind to do. Completely ridiculous arguments.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Well, and yet

Luminon wrote:

Well, and yet the mathemathics is still called the queen of sciences. The reason is that (unlike creationism, religon and God) it is very useful and damn diffcult to learn.

Again, you can use a broader definition of "science" in order to include anything under that category; but mathematics does not trade on empirical observation or laboratory testing.  As far as your bald assertion that religion and God are not useful, we could debate that; the point is, for you to just assert it with no qualifications is dishonest and does not make for good debate.  

Quote:
Not much, but if you mean that his The Incompleteness Theorem necessitates God, then it is only argument from ignorance.

No, he formulated an ontological proof for the existence of God.  I take it by your response that you've never seen it, no?

Quote:
Believing is not seeing, it's indoctrination of children.

Are you claiming that nobody chooses to believe in God via their own rationality? 

Quote:
As for power, shouldn't it be apparent to everoyne? What power has God, if he didn't strike by lightning all my blaspheming and witchcrafting friends like in good old times?

No.  That God actually exists does not entail that you or I would be the first to know that he does; it could be that we are just ignorant, or perhaps fallen.  

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Because of the topic, your question as posed is too vague.

"science" "know" and "things" would need qualifiers.

I don't have time for semantic merry-go-rounds.  

That's bullshit.

You'll argue ad nauseum about 'perfect' 'great' 'loving' 'just', etc, etc...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You know what I mean when I say those things; you are merely grandstanding.

No.

I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply sincerely trying to understand how and why certain atheists (skeptics) are so reluctant to adopt or seriously entertain the notions of a supernatural prime mover.

But you're not being sincere. You're still just being an obnoxious troll. Same as the first day that you posted here.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Anyway, I've dealt with you before and you are a waste of my time. 

Your take on things fascinates me.

I still can't figure out if you're a poe, or not.

I have no idea why someone who thinks he's so brilliant, keeps coming back to a place where he keeps getting told he's more and more absurd, by more and more people.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You are perhaps the biggest moron on this entire forum--I dare say even more than cj.

That's kinda like an ugly girl telling me she doesn't find me attractive...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Because it's a scientific claim, otherwise there would be nothing (sic).

Case in point.

?

You clowns really need to get your stories and analogies straight.

We keep hearing the 'A painting is scientific proof there was a painter' ergo, that the universe is scientific proof there was a 'creator'.

The claim of God somehow manifesting as a man named 'Jesus', and being 'killed' and his supposed 'resurrection', are empirical (and therefore scientific ) claims that underpin the Judeo Christian 'faith'.

If you deny this is used by apologists and priests to attempt to argue for the existence of God, then you're not up to speed with what your compatriots are arguing.

Christians themselves are the biggest reasons that 'Christianity' has been undermined.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

(Note that this is the same guy who admitted in our debate thread that he's had virtually no exposure to any sophisticated discourse on the God issue; he admitted that he just happened upon this stuff recently

Your level of debate is funny...

And what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing.

All those 'arguments' rely on an individual's 'intuition', which is based on their life experience, to conclude that a God 'surely' must exist.

Not that he does in fact exist, other than in the hopes of people who are also somehow convinced that there is an afterlife.

It's obvious to me that in your life, you don't discuss things with people of extremely high intelligence, if these are the ideas that you lecture to people. 

Our 'intuitions' have proven to be the biggest stumbling block to human advancement, and the distilling of 'truth', when compared to the scientific method.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
... so anything he says here is not to be taken seriously.

That's drole.

You're asserting that with a 'definition' you can prove that something exists; which is patently absurd. As someone else pointed out, you've essentially 'palmed a card' in your card trick, by saying that if 'the premises are true', then it must follow that the 'conclusion' is true.

Well fuckin' duhhhhh...

If someone accepts that the premises are 'true' (whether they are compatible with reality or not), then it's an ipso facto that the conclusion is 'true'.

The most obvious defeater to any 'God' claims, is simple. Just ask the question to any claim, with 'According to whom?', or 'How do you know that is certain?'.

The default apologist answer, (it seems) is 'According to logic', or 'Because it's logical'.

This is a fallacy, as I (and others) have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We cannot 'get ahead of ourselves', in certainty. This is an inescapable universal law.

 

So, to summarize; no one person witnessed how this universe formed, or how biological life formed, so there's no possible way for anyone (or any 'group) to assert that they know 'the truth' about those 2 base questions.

You and I (and anyone with half a brain) knows that there is a Nobel Prize, and a place in the history books for anyone that could provide the unequivocal understanding of how either of those 2 things occurred.

It hasn't happened.

But given the exponential rise in our grasp of the mechanics of the universe, in the last 100 years or so, it's obvious that science is where you should place your bets on, if you're 'objective', 'rational' and 'logical'.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If we expand the idea of

If we expand the idea of 'science' beyond the more formal practice, gaining knowledge via 'science' would mean simply basing it on observations of what we can perceive outside our own mind, ie what we perceive in external reality, augmented where appropriate and available by instruments to allow us to detect and measure effects and events beyond what we can directly sense.

Such observations should where possible be repeated, and from different perspectives if possible, and be independently checked and challenged by others, the more so when they seem beyond ordinary experience or imply conclusions which are against our intuitions and pre-existing beliefs. Such checks take us into more formal science as they become more rigorous and extensive.

Nowadays, with the help of fMRI scanners, and cleverly designed psychological test scenarios and surveys, this process extends to knowledge of the workings of our own minds/brains, and our societies and civilization itself.

Science employs the deductive tools of logic and math to analyse the results of observation and experiment to reach for those potential explanations or models of reality we call 'theories'.

EDIT: Mathematics and logic are essential tools of rigorous reasoning, not revealing any knowledge in themselves, but revealing the implications and consequences of their initial assumptions, AKA 'axioms'. They only show that IF the relevant axioms hold in reality, THEN certain conclusions follow. Only empirical data derived from observation of reality can give us knowledge of the nature of reality.

So, Mr_M, what alternatives to evidence-based, empirical observations, analysed by logic and math, do you have in mind for gaining knowledge about what IS?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Is science the only way we can know things?

If not, then why do I need to present scientific evidence for God?  

 

There is no way NOT to use observation in some way, that is HOW we collect data. Doing it wisely and pragmatically count MORE in important areas, that say hearing how your spouses day went. Religion and all deity beliefs are a result of our egos and our emotions over riding our pragmatic side. AS A SPECIES collectively in our evolution.

SCIENCE is not a person, or a feild, it is a tool. Just like you can use a hammer to build a house. The house is not the tool, it is the "field" just like an apartment would be a "feild" but both use hammers "the tool" to build.

"God" is not in dispute by those in the know. It is merely a super hero humans like making up. Just like Santa and just like invisible friends kids make up and believe in.

SCIENCE is the only universal tool that can be used to settle disputes on how reality is measured. It has a strict standard of testing repeating, falsifying and independently verifying.

DEITY belief doe not. It is a social club, not a classroom. It does NOT have the same standard of testing nor do fans of god/s or fans of a religion, like handing their claims over to outsiders to have the tires kicked to insure quality of data. It is nothing more than group ego protecting a group myth.

You do not have a hammer in religion, so any "house" you build is merely hollow and based on a non existent foundation based on wishful thinking.

You are right in that you DONT have to present us any scientific evidence for your god. True, but why should we buy it if you don't?

Only a fool would go to the used car lot and simply buy the car because the salesmen said, "look at the pretty blue it is"

The skeptic takes the car to an independent mechanic and has him check under the hood.

Theism gets you to buy it first only for you to turn around and sell it. It is never tested empirically and cannot build anything like science has. It only builds clubs and sells superstition and comic book super heros.

No you don't have to prove anything, but I don't have to buy it without proof, and your claim doesn't deserve blind respect just because I agree with your right to make any claim you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Again, you can use a broader definition of "science" in order to include anything under that category; but mathematics does not trade on empirical observation or laboratory testing.  As far as your bald assertion that religion and God are not useful, we could debate that; the point is, for you to just assert it with no qualifications is dishonest and does not make for good debate.  

Sciences can be both empirical and rationalistic, or one of these. What really counts, is the scientific method. Observe something, (or not) make a hypothesis about it, test it, alter the hypothesis, accept it or reject it according to the result.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 
Quote:
Not much, but if you mean that his The Incompleteness Theorem necessitates God, then it is only argument from ignorance.
 No, he formulated an ontological proof for the existence of God.  I take it by your response that you've never seen it, no?
No, I haven't seen the argument and it wasn't on Wikipedia. So I googled up something right now. Is that what you mean?

 

 

  • God is understood to be an individual or being who knows everything, i.e., is omniscient. If something is true, God (real or fictitious) would know it. Similarly, if
    something is false, God (real or fictitious) would know that as well. Along with this goes the fact that we conceive of God as encompassing all rationality. A being who created the universe but was irrational, for example, would not appropriately be called God.
  • All rational individuals believe in their own existence. Even if they don't exist, this is presumed to be the case. Popeye is conceived of as believing in his own existence. He is simply mistaken about this fact. Existing individuals believe correctly in their own existence, while fictitious individuals are sadly mistaken on this point.
  • If God did not exist, then by our first point, above, God would know that he or she did not exist. But this contradicts our second point. So God must exist.
  •  

     

    This argument is flawed, because the fictitious individuals are not individuals and can not know anything. They are merely collections of text, pictures or actor's acting. Our  imagination makes us refer to them as individuals, but that's just a figure of speech and artist's craft. Or do you believe, that Popeye is a real living person? Smiling

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
     
    Quote:
    Believing is not seeing, it's indoctrination of children.

    Are you claiming that nobody chooses to believe in God via their own rationality?

    No, not nobody, but about 90% religious people are religious only and because they parents indoctrinated them. The rest became religious for various reasons. Some were brainwashed or had poor critical thinking. Some had a spiritual experience and attributed it to Yahweh the jealous god or his son, for some incomprehensible reason. Then there are thinkers who see God as a necessity behind mathemathics, philosophy or physics, but none of them are able to explain why they chose the god of middle-eastern goat herders and not the modern, glorious and magnificent Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is just as much evidence. 

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
     No.  That God actually exists does not entail that you or I would be the first to know that he does; it could be that we are just ignorant, or perhaps fallen.  
    Well, then it is argument from ignorance. We, who want to stay out of straight jacket, must automatically reject arguments from ignorance or unfounded claims. What if the terrible snarfwidget will come at night and devours your faith-soaked flesh?
    You don't know it doesn't exist, so it may exist.

    Fallen, like fallen from God's grace? Seriously, I don't understand why Christians think that disobeying Yahweh, knowledge of good and evil, eternal life and leaving the paradise are such a bad things and make us "fallen". The whole story looks exactly like a plan to release a pair of animals into the wilderness to repopulate it. They must prove they are bold and curious to obtain food on their own, and then the keeper must frighten them, to scare them away from the breeding station, so they won't return for easy food and shelter. Anyone who worked at breedery of endangered species for wilderness repopulation will tell you the same. 

    Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Luminon wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

    Luminon wrote:

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

    Again, you can use a broader definition of "science" in order to include anything under that category; but mathematics does not trade on empirical observation or laboratory testing.  As far as your bald assertion that religion and God are not useful, we could debate that; the point is, for you to just assert it with no qualifications is dishonest and does not make for good debate.  

    Sciences can be both empirical and rationalistic, or one of these. What really counts, is the scientific method. Observe something, (or not) make a hypothesis about it, test it, alter the hypothesis, accept it or reject it according to the result.

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
     
    Quote:
    Not much, but if you mean that his The Incompleteness Theorem necessitates God, then it is only argument from ignorance.
     No, he formulated an ontological proof for the existence of God.  I take it by your response that you've never seen it, no?
    No, I haven't seen the argument and it wasn't on Wikipedia. So I googled up something right now. Is that what you mean?

     

     

     

     

  • God is understood to be an individual or being who knows everything, i.e., is omniscient. If something is true, God (real or fictitious) would know it. Similarly, if
    something is false, God (real or fictitious) would know that as well. Along with this goes the fact that we conceive of God as encompassing all rationality. A being who created the universe but was irrational, for example, would not appropriately be called God.
  • All rational individuals believe in their own existence. Even if they don't exist, this is presumed to be the case. Popeye is conceived of as believing in his own existence. He is simply mistaken about this fact. Existing individuals believe correctly in their own existence, while fictitious individuals are sadly mistaken on this point.
  • If God did not exist, then by our first point, above, God would know that he or she did not exist. But this contradicts our second point. So God must exist.
  •  

     

     

     

    This argument is flawed, because the fictitious individuals are not individuals and can not know anything. They are merely collections of text, pictures or actor's acting. Our  imagination makes us refer to them as individuals, but that's just a figure of speech and artist's craft. Or do you believe, that Popeye is a real living person? Smiling

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
     
    Quote:
    Believing is not seeing, it's indoctrination of children.

    Are you claiming that nobody chooses to believe in God via their own rationality?

    No, not nobody, but about 90% religious people are religious only and because they parents indoctrinated them. The rest became religious for various reasons. Some were brainwashed or had poor critical thinking. Some had a spiritual experience and attributed it to Yahweh the jealous god or his son, for some incomprehensible reason. Then there are thinkers who see God as a necessity behind mathemathics, philosophy or physics, but none of them are able to explain why they chose the god of middle-eastern goat herders and not the modern, glorious and magnificent Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is just as much evidence. 

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
     No.  That God actually exists does not entail that you or I would be the first to know that he does; it could be that we are just ignorant, or perhaps fallen.  
    Well, then it is argument from ignorance. We, who want to stay out of straight jacket, must automatically reject arguments from ignorance or unfounded claims. What if the terrible snarfwidget will come at night and devours your faith-soaked flesh?
    You don't know it doesn't exist, so it may exist.

    Fallen, like fallen from God's grace? Seriously, I don't understand why Christians think that disobeying Yahweh, knowledge of good and evil, eternal life and leaving the paradise are such a bad things and make us "fallen". The whole story looks exactly like a plan to release a pair of animals into the wilderness to repopulate it. They must prove they are bold and curious to obtain food on their own, and then the keeper must frighten them, to scare them away from the breeding station, so they won't return for easy food and shelter. Anyone who worked at breedery of endangered species for wilderness repopulation will tell you the same. 

    It's arguments like this that annoy. We have not even proven the bible was written by anything other than a bunch of socialistic goat herding wannabe philisophical saps and we delve into this kind of stuff. I'll begin to consider the deep end of the pool when we get past the shallow kid side.

     

    It's like someone claiming they saw a ufo and there are aliens that want to take over the world. Ufo what? And they want to discuss why the aliens want to take over the earth..wtf what aliens what ufo huh?

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    Atheistextremist
    atheist
    Atheistextremist's picture
    Posts: 5133
    Joined: 2009-09-17
    User is offlineOffline
    Most all the premises

    Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

    Atheistextremist wrote:

    truly know about material reality that is not made comprehensible by testable explanation? Is the existence of a supernatural god the only thing that cannot be explained by the scientific method? What other actual things are there for which you don't require some form of empiricism?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

     

    given by Craig in this debate refer to concepts contained inside the human brain. It's little wonder Atkins can't respond to Craig's insistence mathematics, time, moral concepts and so forth cannot be studied using an empirical model. In response Atkins would have to actually know what these concepts are and explain them coherently and quickly - it's easy to run off a shopping list of assertions saying what things are not. 

    But Craig fails to explain what these concepts are himself. He simply asserts they are immaterial - because they are beyond the current scope of empiricism. He offers no acceptable proof this is so, he fails to define immaterial and in no way can this grab bag of ill-defined human mental concepts go on to prove the existence of an ill-defined, immaterial god. Ultimately, this argument from you is a fallacy of complexity and a fallacy of ignorance. There is no proof offered beyond general insistence that because some mental concepts are not completely explained by the scientific process and our fledgling neuroscience, then there must be a god. 

    No one here is going to deny there's mystery in these things you present but in my opinion nothing has yet been explained by a process of religious 'empiricism' for want of a better word. Always when things are explained it's by testable explanation. The alternatives remain unsupported hypotheses for the existence of an ultimate creative power theists insist exists but for which they offer no positive proof, a being defined on the basis of generalised qualities sourced partly from subjective human experience and partly from human imagination. 

    Additionally, your relentless ad hominem does you no credit regardless of the frustration you feel over the fact people here don't agree with you. This is an atheist forum and it's pretty obvious we all serve established confirmation biases - including you. It's difficult to respect the position of an individual who resorts to calling his protagonists 'retarded'. 

     

     

    "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


    Ktulu
    atheist
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: 2010-12-21
    User is offlineOffline
    Atheistextremist wrote:given

    Atheistextremist wrote:

    given by Craig in this debate refer to concepts contained inside the human brain. It's little wonder Atkins can't respond to Craig's insistence mathematics, time, moral concepts and so forth cannot be studied using an empirical model. In response Atkins would have to actually know what these concepts are and explain them coherently and quickly - it's easy to run off a shopping list of assertions saying what things are not. 

    But Craig fails to explain what these concepts are himself. He simply asserts they are immaterial - because they are beyond the current scope of empiricism. He offers no acceptable proof this is so, he fails to define immaterial and in no way can this grab bag of ill-defined human mental concepts go on to prove the existence of an ill-defined, immaterial god. Ultimately, this argument from you is a fallacy of complexity and a fallacy of ignorance. There is no proof offered beyond general insistence that because some mental concepts are not completely explained by the scientific process and our fledgling neuroscience, then there must be a god. 

    No one here is going to deny there's mystery in these things you present but in my opinion nothing has yet been explained by a process of religious 'empiricism' for want of a better word. Always when things are explained it's by testable explanation. The alternatives remain unsupported hypotheses for the existence of an ultimate creative power theists insist exists but for which they offer no positive proof, a being defined on the basis of generalised qualities sourced partly from subjective human experience and partly from human imagination. 

    Additionally, your relentless ad hominem does you no credit regardless of the frustration you feel over the fact people here don't agree with you. This is an atheist forum and it's pretty obvious we all serve established confirmation biases - including you. It's difficult to respect the position of an individual who resorts to calling his protagonists 'retarded'. 

     

     

    I like this post.  Smiling

    "Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


    Kapkao
    atheistSuperfan
    Kapkao's picture
    Posts: 4121
    Joined: 2010-01-12
    User is offlineOffline
    BobSpence1 wrote:If we

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    If we expand the idea of 'science' beyond the more formal practice, gaining knowledge via 'science' would mean simply basing it on observations of what we can perceive outside our own mind, ie what we perceive in external reality, augmented where appropriate and available by instruments to allow us to detect and measure effects and events beyond what we can directly sense.

    Such observations should where possible be repeated, and from different perspectives if possible, and be independently checked and challenged by others, the more so when they seem beyond ordinary experience or imply conclusions which are against our intuitions and pre-existing beliefs. Such checks take us into more formal science as they become more rigorous and extensive.

    Nowadays, with the help of fMRI scanners, and cleverly designed psychological test scenarios and surveys, this process extends to knowledge of the workings of our own minds/brains, and our societies and civilization itself.

    Science employs the deductive tools of logic and math to analyse the results of observation and experiment to reach for those potential explanations or models of reality we call 'theories'.

    EDIT: Mathematics and logic are essential tools of rigorous reasoning, not revealing any knowledge in themselves, but revealing the implications and consequences of their initial assumptions, AKA 'axioms'. They only show that IF the relevant axioms hold in reality, THEN certain conclusions follow. Only empirical data derived from observation of reality can give us knowledge of the nature of reality.

    So, Mr_M, what alternatives to evidence-based, empirical observations, analysed by logic and math, do you have in mind for gaining knowledge about what IS?

    Ouch. I think someone just killed the entire thread...

    “A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


    Brian37
    atheistSuperfan
    Brian37's picture
    Posts: 15725
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Mr

    Mr Metaphysics,

    EXAMPLE:

    "snarfwidgets"

    There, now you have "knowledge" of "snarfwidgets".

    What exactly do you have knowledge of?

    Do not confuse being aware of a claim as being the same as the claim having credibility,

    If all I do is go around claiming "snarfwidgets", all you have knowledge of is the claim. Unless I can demonstrate to you in an empirical manor, with testing and falsification and independent verification, "snarfwidget" should be merely a claim to you. Only a fool would swallow "snarfwidget" merely because they have "knowledge" of a claim.

    What kills me, is that as a kid I fell for the Big Foot myth, and that was back in the 70s. I am pissed as hell that one of the few channels Animal Planet, which for the most part, does a great job providing educational material, is now rehashing that bullshit story in a new show.

    I have "knowledge" of claims of Big foot. But I also know that evolutionary biology is not a myth and "Big Foot" is merely another conspiracy superstition people like buying into.

    I have knowledge of Ouija boards, Loc Ness, 4 leaf clovers. I have knowledge that people go around believing those things, yes.

    BUT merely hearing a claim ON ANY ISSUE is not the same as having that claim universally tested and independently verified.

    I have knowledge of Mickey Mouse too. I have Knowledge of Harry Potter. I have knowledge of Star Wars. And now you have knowledge of "Snarfwidgets".

    Claims by themselves are not facts and facts are not opinions. You can have knowledge of other's opinions and others positions, but those by themselves do not constitute facts.

    I think it is stupid for our species in today's age to still cling to utopia claims of invisible friends. I UNDERSTAND WHY humans do this, yes. And from a human empathy, human rights standpoint, I defend their right to believe what they want.

    BUT defending someone's right to make a claim, is a separate issue than that persons ABILITY to DEMONSTRATE the credibility of their claim.

    Unless a claim can be kicked around by multiple sources with the same standard of testing, it should remain a claim, and not a fact.

    DNA is a fact. Black holes are a fact. Entropy  is a fact.

    Allah, Vishnu, pantheism, Big Foot, are all CLAIMS. Popularity of these claims do not make them fact. And considering that the people who make these claims run like cockroaches when you challenge them to allow you to look under the hood, shows me that these claims are not worthy of any consideration and merely amount to the superstitious placebos people fall for.

    In fact, after I hit submit on this post, I am going to shoot Animal Planet an e-mail and express my disgust at their pandering for add dollars by selling Big Foot. It sickens me that shit like that is still being sold and bought.

    My point to you is the same it has been for Cap, and any other woo claimant. Yes, you have the right to claim it. But unless that claim can be tested and falsified, it is not worthy of any serious consideration.

     

    "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
    Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


    robj101
    atheist
    robj101's picture
    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 2010-02-20
    User is offlineOffline
    Kapkao wrote:BobSpence1

    Kapkao wrote:

    BobSpence1 wrote:

    If we expand the idea of 'science' beyond the more formal practice, gaining knowledge via 'science' would mean simply basing it on observations of what we can perceive outside our own mind, ie what we perceive in external reality, augmented where appropriate and available by instruments to allow us to detect and measure effects and events beyond what we can directly sense.

    Such observations should where possible be repeated, and from different perspectives if possible, and be independently checked and challenged by others, the more so when they seem beyond ordinary experience or imply conclusions which are against our intuitions and pre-existing beliefs. Such checks take us into more formal science as they become more rigorous and extensive.

    Nowadays, with the help of fMRI scanners, and cleverly designed psychological test scenarios and surveys, this process extends to knowledge of the workings of our own minds/brains, and our societies and civilization itself.

    Science employs the deductive tools of logic and math to analyse the results of observation and experiment to reach for those potential explanations or models of reality we call 'theories'.

    EDIT: Mathematics and logic are essential tools of rigorous reasoning, not revealing any knowledge in themselves, but revealing the implications and consequences of their initial assumptions, AKA 'axioms'. They only show that IF the relevant axioms hold in reality, THEN certain conclusions follow. Only empirical data derived from observation of reality can give us knowledge of the nature of reality.

    So, Mr_M, what alternatives to evidence-based, empirical observations, analysed by logic and math, do you have in mind for gaining knowledge about what IS?

    Ouch. I think someone just killed the entire thread...

    No not really, god pulls out his scrubbing bubbles and knows everything so we don't have too.

    Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
    "By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5939
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Wondering if and when Mr_M

    Wondering if and when Mr_M is going to grace us with his presence again - I am not going to bother responding to his last response to me until he does, since I see little likelihood of anyone else needing to be straightened out on Mr_M's misunderstanding of my points about the limits of 'definitions' and the subtleties of Modal Logic...

     

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    Zaq
    atheist
    Zaq's picture
    Posts: 269
    Joined: 2008-12-24
    User is offlineOffline
    Whether or not there are

    Whether or not there are non-scientific ways to obtain truth is irrelevent.  The relevent point is that all truth-obtaining methdos must yield the same truth in any regions of overlap.  There is sufficient conflicting overlap between the claims of science and those of religions that we have no real need to address the non-scientific claims (though we may occasionally enjoy the sport).  Until you've smoothed out the areas where your religion does overlap with science, it does you no good to try and prop up the areas that don't overlap.

    Questions for Theists:
    http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

    I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.