God, ontology, epistemology, blah blah blah

[baumgarten]

A lot of buzzwords are being thrown around here lately, and the active threads are hard to follow as a result. Let me try to summarize my view of the current and past banter, and how much of it is actuallly meaningful. I will begin by eliminating the cruft of our most popular antideluvian polysyllabic sesquipedalians.

Epistemology, first of all, is the study of knowledge. When you "use epistemology," you're just asking yourself how you know what you think you know. An epistemic discussion of the existence of God does not work to determine whether or not God actually exists, but only if it is reasonable to believe in him.

Ontology is the study of existence. It involves defining the basic categories of things and how they relate to one another. This kind of thought can, of course, demonstrate the nature of God's existence. You do not "reach" ontology through epistemology; that's nonsense.

God is a word which we use to refer to something in existence. The qualities of this God are quite apparently controversial. There is no widespread agreement over:

1. Whether God has a physical existence or exists only as an idea
2. If God exists only as an idea, whether this idea is of a physical being
3. If God is not physical, whether he exists independent of observation
4. If any of 1-3 are agreed upon, what any further qualities God has; e.g. whether he is perfect, whether he is finite or definable, whether he is a person, whether he is made of wood, etc.

Our demographic seems to encompass most, if not all, of the above lines of thought. This is such a wide range of beliefs that it is far from useful to jump right into argumentation. First we must decide which version of God is to be considered, and then follow the appropriate line of questioning.

Let's say we have agreed for the sake of argument on a concept of God. Are we trying to show that a belief in this God is justified, or are we trying to show how God exists? The former implies an epistemological discussion, and basically boils down to a question of what should be considered valid evidence. The latter is ontological, and concerns the meaning of the word God. We seem to be in some way or another more interested in this latter issue, so let us briefly focus on it here.

Most philosophically minded attempts here involve the use of reason to demonstrate that God must or cannot exist. Let's get this out of the way immediately: lack of evidence of God does not imply lack of God. It may imply that belief in God is not reasonable, but in such a case it must also be conceded that this does not disprove God's existence. Similarly, evidence of the existence of God (ironically enough) does not imply his existence; obviously not everyone is going to accept this evidence as valid. Neither of these arguments operate on reason alone; rather, they make use of various experiences and perceptions to justify their positions not prove them.

With this in mind, I suggest that a few concessions be made to preserve the philosophical "purity" of discussions concerning the existence of God.

1. Science cannot be used as the primary basis of argumentation. Any attempt to prove the physical existence of God must fail, for the same reasons that scientists use falsification rather than verification to advance their theories. A scientific argument carries the insinuation that it is an approximation of the truth and is therefore somehow wrong. The most that in this way could be shown, again, is the reasonability of believing in a physical God.

2. Therefore our starting premise should concern the non-physical existence of God. The only non-physical existence that interests all parties is necessarily a platonic existence, or one independent of observation.

3. Further characteristics must be somehow established in order to differentiate God from, say, a Euclidean triangle. Consciousness is a good start, which also implies a subjective aspect of God. The fact that God is usually considered a conscious being with free will should be taken into account.

4. The classical divine characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not self-evident; or if they are, they are poorly understood. These characteristics, if they are to be posited, need to be established, not assumed.

5. A pantheistic argument is not the same as a theistic argument or an atheistic argument. Touching on (4) as an example, if God is everywhere but not everything, it must be explained how that could be.

6. Avoid moral arguments ("God should have," "God would have," etc.). They are extremely relative and often inflammatory.

7. Political arguments are off-topic in this context. They concern the believers, not the beliefs.

A good philosophical debate will neither become a theological lecture nor a series of quips about the FSM. Though it's probably true that most people here aren't interested in seriously pursuing the question of God, but rather in reinforcing their own beliefs and prejudices, I hope in my limited time to have helped clarify to those who might have earnest intentions which threads of discussion are more likely to bear fruit.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I will begin by eliminating the cruft of our most popular antideluvian polysyllabic sesquipedalians.
.

phwwwwwwwwwoooooooarrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I particularly like

"sesquipedalians." grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A good philosophical debate will neither become a theological lecture nor a series of quips about the FSM. Though it's probably true that most people here aren't interested in seriously pursuing the question of God, but rather in reinforcing their own beliefs and prejudices, I hope in my limited time to have helped clarify to those who might have earnest intentions which threads of discussion are more likely to bear fruit.

Good luck with that, any earnest intention for fruit bearing threads is thwarted by carnivores

 

[Prince_James]

Baumgarten:

Good news everybody! Baumgarten has prevented a reasonable and much needed post!

However, a few problems.

"1. Science cannot be used as the primary basis of argumentation. Any attempt to prove the physical existence of God must fail, for the same reasons that scientists use falsification rather than verification to advance their theories. A scientific argument carries the insinuation that it is an approximation of the truth and is therefore somehow wrong. The most that in this way could be shown, again, is the reasonability of believing in a physical God."

The Karl Popperian axiom that "it is not science if it is not falsifiable", is not really to be found in science, in and of itself. Science declares that certain things are -certainly- indicative of proving certain scientific notions, to the point where even if they may indeed be improved later on, it is assumed that it is truth now and perhaps, truth forever. That is to say, science does attempt to make -truthful- statements, and not, as some scientists would like us to believe, "approximations".

"6. Avoid moral arguments ("God should have," "God would have," etc.). They are extremely relative and often inflammatory."

This is extremely important when dealing with Epicurus' riddle.

 

[James R]

Nice post, baumgarten. I doubt it will get the attention it deserves, though.

 

[lightgigantic]

Epistemology, first of all, is the study of knowledge. When you "use epistemology," you're just asking yourself how you know what you think you know. An epistemic discussion of the existence of God does not work to determine whether or not God actually exists, but only if it is reasonable to believe in him.

So the next question is whether training or education can play a role in determing what is reasonable?
For instance suppose two people are looking at the print out from a blood test - one is a qualified nurse and the other is not - The qualified nurse says "I know you have a low sugar level" - so in other words the nurse knows how to a) read the print out and b) apply those readings within a framework of theoretical knowledge -whereas the other person just sees a bunch of numbers - is the difference in these two people's knowledge environmental(in other words does the nurse have physically different eyeballs or something) or epistemological ?

Ontology is the study of existence. It involves defining the basic categories of things and how they relate to one another. This kind of thought can, of course, demonstrate the nature of God's existence. You do not "reach" ontology through epistemology; that's nonsense.

You can however be trained to perceive the existence of something, like the sugar level in blood for instance.

God is a word which we use to refer to something in existence. The qualities of this God are quite apparently controversial.

Any field of knowledge becomes controversial when there is no clear distinction between who is qualified and who is not (which happens to be the first point I raised in the correct epistemology for perceiving god).
For instance suppose you added the views of green grocers, taxi drivers and lawyers to the credible body of knowledge that surrounds physics

There is no widespread agreement over:

1. Whether God has a physical existence or exists only as an idea

There is the idea however that god has an existence and also a seperated energy which gives the appearance of no existence, just like the sun is the source of sunshine - inotherwords the idea of existing and also not existing can be entertained as factual, but one is seen to be the cause of the other(just like the sun is the cause of the sunshine)

2. If God exists only as an idea, whether this idea is of a physical being

To a high school drop out electrons are merely an idea as well

3. If God is not physical, whether he exists independent of observation

lol - first you would have to establish how one could observe their own independence outside of their own observation before such ridiculous claims are examined

4. If any of 1-3 are agreed upon, what any further qualities God has; e.g. whether he is perfect, whether he is finite or definable, whether he is a person, whether he is made of wood, etc.

So in otherwords, if someone says fire can be recognised of heat, someone says fire can be recognised by light and someone says that fire can be recognised by smoke there is something obviously false about one or more of these claims - are you sure you are on to a good thing here?

Our demographic seems to encompass most, if not all, of the above lines of thought. This is such a wide range of beliefs that it is far from useful to jump right into argumentation. First we must decide which version of God is to be considered, and then follow the appropriate line of questioning.

Or alternatively you could inquire from a credible source rather than relying on your own conceptions - the points you raised as the opening premise are flawed, and now you want to use them as the foundation for contemplation

Let's say we have agreed for the sake of argument on a concept of God. Are we trying to show that a belief in this God is justified, or are we trying to show how God exists? The former implies an epistemological discussion, and basically boils down to a question of what should be considered valid evidence.

So to get back to the blood test, doesn't the nurse's qualification (ie training) rate as evidence?

The latter is ontological, and concerns the meaning of the word God. We seem to be in some way or another more interested in this latter issue, so let us briefly focus on it here.

How can you propose tounderstand god when the premises you drew up for establishing knowledge (ie epistemology) are flawed?

Most philosophically minded attempts here involve the use of reason to demonstrate that God must or cannot exist. Let's get this out of the way immediately: lack of evidence of God does not imply lack of God. It may imply that belief in God is not reasonable, but in such a case it must also be conceded that this does not disprove God's existence.

Lack of evidence can also indicate a lack on behalf off the person gathering evidence, that is they don't know how to look for evidence, which brings us back to epistemology

Similarly, evidence of the existence of God (ironically enough) does not imply his existence; obviously not everyone is going to accept this evidence as valid.

Again,to get back to the blood test, not everyone is going to accept that there is a low bllod sugar - why? Because they are not qualified (ie not trained, they have not received knowledge), which again brings us back to epistemology

Neither of these arguments operate on reason alone; rather, they make use of various experiences and perceptions to justify their positions not prove them.

So when the nurse says that you have a low blood sugar it isn't a rational statement?

With this in mind, I suggest that a few concessions be made to preserve the philosophical "purity" of discussions concerning the existence of God.

OK - so using your flawed premises as a foundation for rumination, and after reaching certain convictions from such flawed rumination you are about to hit us with a conclusion - this ought to be good

1. Science cannot be used as the primary basis of argumentation. Any attempt to prove the physical existence of God must fail, for the same reasons that scientists use falsification rather than verification to advance their theories. A scientific argument carries the insinuation that it is an approximation of the truth and is therefore somehow wrong. The most that in this way could be shown, again, is the reasonability of believing in a physical God.

Actually, I more or less agree with what you are saying - I have maintained all along that logic cannot bring one to the point of perceiving god -I have maintained however (and this is where I will no doubt diverge from your conclusion, thatdraws on flawed premises BTW) that logic can bring one to the point of applying the relevant epistemology which enables one to perceive the ontological status of god

2. Therefore our starting premise should concern the non-physical existence of God. The only non-physical existence that interests all parties is necessarily a platonic existence, or one independent of observation.

This is merely using logic to come to the point of applying the correct epsitemology for perceiving god - once one becomes convinced of the undeniable existence of a platonic existence, then one can come to the point of applying the relevant process toperceive it - basicallythe only way that your statement could be true (that there is no way to directly perceive the platonic existence)is if you are currently omniscient and know all that anyone could hope to know in the future - at the very least, if god does just happen to exist, and if he does just happen to be all powerful, and if he does also happen to be all knowledgable, is there any reason that he could not bestow any amount of knowledge on anyone whom he so desires (BTW - working to get the direct reciprocation of god, untainted by mundane desires, is the goal of the correct epistemology for perceing god)

3. Further characteristics must be somehow established in order to differentiate God from, say, a Euclidean triangle. Consciousness is a good start, which also implies a subjective aspect of God. The fact that God is usually considered a conscious being with free will should be taken into account.

Once again you are still stuck on using logic, but logic will only enable you to come to the point of coming to the correct epsitemology - inotherwords suppose that one does develop the conviction that god exists by an analysis of consciousness - where do they go from there? Once again,it would require that you are omniscient to say that there is no further way to know god (and its also contrary to the statements of scripture, which are full of indications how to know god)

4. The classical divine characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not self-evident; or if they are, they are poorly understood. These characteristics, if they are to be posited, need to be established, not assumed.

Actually I agree - AAF's "god is a contradiction" thread is a classic - he insists on using a definition that god is not actually omnipotent by stating that material nature caused god, as a vehicle for his logic - again - a lack of a foundation in theoretical foundations is an epistemological error which, to quote your original definitions of ontology,

Ontology is the study of existence. It involves defining the basic categories of things and how they relate to one another. This kind of thought can, of course, demonstrate the nature of God's existence. .

seems to affect how people perceive god relates to the phenomenal world

5. A pantheistic argument is not the same as a theistic argument or an atheistic argument. Touching on (4) as an example, if God is everywhere but not everything, it must be explained how that could be.

easily explained - just like on a heavily clouded day the sunshine appears to be everywhere bit the sun is nowhere to be seen - inotherwords the sunshine appears to have no source - Its not a false statement - its not false vision - it is however incomplete vision - inotherwords pantheism comes under the banner of theism, just as sunshine comes under the banner of the sun, even in the absence of the sun

6. Avoid moral arguments ("God should have," "God would have," etc.). They are extremely relative and often inflammatory.

Actually atheists have an idea of what god should or would or could be doing - these ideas can be expressed because they represent their doubt about the existence of god, and such doubts can be countered by establishing the proper theoretical foundation for god (namely who he is, what we are, what the material world is and the nature of illusion - all explained by the use of logic).

7. Political arguments are off-topic in this context. They concern the believers, not the beliefs.

Agreed

A good philosophical debate will neither become a theological lecture nor a series of quips about the FSM. Though it's probably true that most people here aren't interested in seriously pursuing the question of God, but rather in reinforcing their own beliefs and prejudices, I hope in my limited time to have helped clarify to those who might have earnest intentions which threads of discussion are more likely to bear fruit.

Thanks I appreciate your endeavour, even though I disagree with quite a few of the essential premises

 

[wsionynw]

Any field of knowledge becomes controversial when there is no clear distinction between who is qualified and who is not (which happens to be the first point I raised in the correct epistemology for perceiving god).
For instance suppose you added the views of green grocers, taxi drivers and lawyers to the credible body of knowledge that surrounds physics

Light, help me out here. Who is qualified to confirm or deny the existence of a God or Gods?
What are their qualifications?
Cheers.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light, help me out here. Who is qualified to confirm or deny the existence of a God or Gods?
What are their qualifications?
Cheers.

Do you want to take it up here or in the proper epistemology thread?

- but in short there are tons of indications in any scripture you care to mention - one such eg of an indication is

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.
NOI -1

 

[Sarkus]

So the next question is whether training or education can play a role in determing what is reasonable?

Of course it does. Very little is self-evident without some training or education (albeit from both formal and non-formal training / education).

However, one should not rely on, nor merely state, that "I have training and therefore know that A = Z". One must be able to explain that training - and how they get from A to Z, via steps A = B, B = C etc.
Only then can others assess whether this training / education is valid, and the conclusion reasonable.
I.e. you need to avoid argument from consensus (e.g. "lots of people have this training therefore it's valid")

For instance suppose two people are looking at the print out from a blood test - one is a qualified nurse and the other is not - The qualified nurse says "I know you have a low sugar level" - so in other words the nurse knows how to a) read the print out and b) apply those readings within a framework of theoretical knowledge -whereas the other person just sees a bunch of numbers - is the difference in these two people's knowledge environmental(in other words does the nurse have physically different eyeballs or something) or epistemological ?

The qualified nurse can quite happily explain what the read out means to the one who doesn't. If they are unable to then the unqualified nurse has no grounds on which to accept the "qualified" nurses explanation and conclusions. To do so would be an appeal to authority.

Any field of knowledge becomes controversial when there is no clear distinction between who is qualified and who is not (which happens to be the first point I raised in the correct epistemology for perceiving god).
For instance suppose you added the views of green grocers, taxi drivers and lawyers to the credible body of knowledge that surrounds physics

No - you just need to weed out the views that are not supported.
To only accept comments / statements from qualified people is an appeal to authority.
ALL arguments should be listened to IRRESPECTIVE of source - and assessed on their own merits (e.g. the evidentiary support).

There is the idea however that god has an existence and also a seperated energy which gives the appearance of no existence, just like the sun is the source of sunshine - inotherwords the idea of existing and also not existing can be entertained as factual, but one is seen to be the cause of the other(just like the sun is the cause of the sunshine)

What????
Sunshine is factual and can be shown to exist - as can the sun.
Are you saying sunshine does not exist?
Are you "qualified" to make such statements?

So in otherwords, if someone says fire can be recognised of heat, someone says fire can be recognised by light and someone says that fire can be recognised by smoke there is something obviously false about one or more of these claims - are you sure you are on to a good thing here?

You're not really reading his opening post, are you?
Baumgarten said that these things might or might not be agreed upon - but nowhere did he say that one or all of them might not be complimentary, as in your example.

Or alternatively you could inquire from a credible source rather than relying on your own conceptions - the points you raised as the opening premise are flawed, and now you want to use them as the foundation for contemplation.

Your understanding of his post is flawed - or you are unable to accept that other people's concepts of God differ from your own - I'm not sure which it is?

So to get back to the blood test, doesn't the nurse's qualification (ie training) rate as evidence?

Not of itself, no.
To use it as evidence is an appeal to authority.

The evidence is the underlying sources and procedures that the nurse has been trained in - which are themselves supported by experimentation and practice.

Lack of evidence can also indicate a lack on behalf off the person gathering evidence, that is they don't know how to look for evidence, which brings us back to epistemology.

True - but then the person who considers themself to be in a better position to find this evidence should either educate the person, or find the evidence for them - demonstrating what it is and how they found it. To sit on the sidelines and shout "you don't know how to find it!" is neither useful nor condusive to progress.
If you can find it, all on your own, but can not explain how it was found then it really should not be considered. You need to be able to support the find.

So when the nurse says that you have a low blood sugar it isn't a rational statement?

Eh? How did you interpret Baum's statement to mean this?

I have maintained all along that logic cannot bring one to the point of perceiving god -I have maintained however ... that logic can bring one to the point of applying the relevant epistemology which enables one to perceive the ontological status of god

And this logic is... ?

...once one becomes convinced of the undeniable existence of a platonic existence...

And you convince people... how?

...(namely who he is, what we are, what the material world is and the nature of illusion - all explained by the use of logic).

Feel free to use logic and explain it to us.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Only then can others assess whether this training / education is valid, and the conclusion reasonable.
I.e. you need to avoid argument from consensus (e.g. "lots of people have this training therefore it's valid")

Yes I agree - the ability to get the job done is what determines quality - this is what I mean when I say qualified, qualification etc - not the institutional rubber stamp

ALL arguments should be listened to IRRESPECTIVE of source - and assessed on their own merits (e.g. the evidentiary support).

and isn't the assessment done through the assessment of quality (ie quality control)?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
There is the idea however that god has an existence and also a seperated energy which gives the appearance of no existence, just like the sun is the source of sunshine - inotherwords the idea of existing and also not existing can be entertained as factual, but one is seen to be the cause of the other(just like the sun is the cause of the sunshine) ”

What????
Sunshine is factual and can be shown to exist - as can the sun.
Are you saying sunshine does not exist?
Are you "qualified" to make such statements?

You misunderstood - just as the sun apparently disappears on a cloudy day yet stillthere is sunshine, similarly the visible feature of god may not be apparent, but his all -pervasive nature remains (ie pantheism or god as energy etc)

You're not really reading his opening post, are you?
Baumgarten said that these things might or might not be agreed upon - but nowhere did he say that one or all of them might not be complimentary, as in your example.

"Doesn't "there is no widespread agreement" indicate they are not complimentary"?

Your understanding of his post is flawed - or you are unable to accept that other people's concepts of God differ from your own - I'm not sure which it is?

How would you know? Youhave never inquired what my concepts of god are, let alone how generous their definitions may be

Not of itself, no.
To use it as evidence is an appeal to authority.

The evidence is the underlying sources and procedures that the nurse has been trained in - which are themselves supported by experimentation and practice.

Sometimes I think you just use long winded statements to agree with my statements

True - but then the person who considers themself to be in a better position to find this evidence should either educate the person, or find the evidence for them - demonstrating what it is and how they found it. To sit on the sidelines and shout "you don't know how to find it!" is neither useful nor condusive to progress.

Assuming of course that the person desires to be taught

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So when the nurse says that you have a low blood sugar it isn't a rational statement? ”

Eh? How did you interpret Baum's statement to mean this?

Perception and experience can be objective - in other words it is a logical fallacy to say that it is impossible tohave an objective experience

And this logic is... ?

A person can see the benefit in knowing god and decides it is a worthwhile endeavour

“ ...once one becomes convinced of the undeniable existence of a platonic existence... ”

And you convince people... how?

lol - many births and deaths I guess

“ ...(namely who he is, what we are, what the material world is and the nature of illusion - all explained by the use of logic). ”

Feel free to use logic and explain it to us.

In the context of my statement, you would have to present an argument along the lines of "God does not exist because ......." before I proceed

 

[swivel]

1. Science cannot be used as the primary basis of argumentation. Any attempt to prove the physical existence of God must fail, for the same reasons that scientists use falsification rather than verification to advance their theories. A scientific argument carries the insinuation that it is an approximation of the truth and is therefore somehow wrong. The most that in this way could be shown, again, is the reasonability of believing in a physical God.

Scientists do not use verification? That is the very first thing that most scientists attempt. First they theorize, then they attempt to verify the theory. You are just playing semantics, here, and not doing a very good job of it. When astronomers set up an experiment to measure the deflection of starlight around the sun during an eclipse, I assure you that many of them were setting off to "verify" general relativity. I'm sure a few doubters were setting out to do the opposite. So what is your point?

The fact remains that general relativity received an enormous boost that day because it was verified. And you are confusing this process with something unrelated that is often said about science: That it can only test falsifiable claims. That doesn't mean that science works through falsification, it is just a statement on the ontological constraints that science obeys.

2. Therefore our starting premise should concern the non-physical existence of God. The only non-physical existence that interests all parties is necessarily a platonic existence, or one independent of observation.

That would work well for you, eh? Too bad a lot of the people in this forum believe that Jesus was the personal embodiment of God, and that there is historical proof of his existence. I am not one of these people, but I am just thinking that you might get some complaints when everyone is bent to your limiting rule-set.

3. Further characteristics must be somehow established in order to differentiate God from, say, a Euclidean triangle. Consciousness is a good start, which also implies a subjective aspect of God. The fact that God is usually considered a conscious being with free will should be taken into account.

Why don't we let each theist define their own god? A lot of my friends view the Earth as a god. Some of my physicists friends have a difficult time relinquishing the power of their faith, and see the universe as a god. What, O-Great-Rule-Maker, of them?

4. The classical divine characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not self-evident; or if they are, they are poorly understood. These characteristics, if they are to be posited, need to be established, not assumed.

The only way in the world to establish these things is to "assume" them, and have faith in them. Unless, by "establish" you mean that some Rule-Giver tells us to with a bullet-list.

5. A pantheistic argument is not the same as a theistic argument or an atheistic argument. Touching on (4) as an example, if God is everywhere but not everything, it must be explained how that could be.

You are going to have a very difficult time getting people who say things like "God is everywhere" to adopt strict explanatory guidelines.

6. Avoid moral arguments ("God should have," "God would have," etc.). They are extremely relative and often inflammatory.

Most theists that I come in contact with believe very strongly that a personal relationship with god is required of them. You are asking a lot of people to throw their understanding of god out of the window just to please you. The hubris here is unreal.

The two religious tomes that I spend time with, the Bible and the Koran, are both FULL of explanations for god's behavior. They say over and over that god did something "because" of this or that. How are believers of those religions to ignore what few tidbits they have about their god? How are we, who argue with them, to ignore those facts as well? What a silly limit on our ability to converse.

7. Political arguments are off-topic in this context. They concern the believers, not the beliefs.

I disagree again. (surprised?) Both politics and religion attempt many of the same tasks. They both try to acheive peaceful coexistence of people whose motives might be at odds with the rest of the group. They do this with systems of rules and ethical behavior. And they are very competitive with other systems that clash with these rules.

Compound this with the fact that religion and politics get intertwined in most societies, and I don't see how you can tease them apart just by saying so. Some of the laws on the books in the United States are motivated by religion. The views of our two major political parties are divided by religion. Even more of this mixture and division takes place in the Middle East, or in Ireland.


I understand your desire to keep the hostilities out of discussions, I wish there was an easy way to do that, but ruling by fiat is not it. Instead of calling for moderation, you are asking for a different kind of fanaticism. I just don't see how either extreme is healthy.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

baumgarten,

What kind of fruit are you hoping to bear?

 

[swivel]

baumgarten,

What kind of fruit are you hoping to bear?

Get everyone to accept his opinions as divine wisdom so we will all speak his language and never disagree with anything he has to say?

I'm just guessing...

 

[baumgarten]

The Karl Popperian axiom that "it is not science if it is not falsifiable", is not really to be found in science, in and of itself. Science declares that certain things are -certainly- indicative of proving certain scientific notions, to the point where even if they may indeed be improved later on, it is assumed that it is truth now and perhaps, truth forever. That is to say, science does attempt to make -truthful- statements, and not, as some scientists would like us to believe, "approximations".

While this is true, in this particular context, it is difficult, if not impossible, to soundly base a statement regarding the existence of God on scientific evidence. I wouldn't expect such an attempt to be able to make much forward progress.

"6. Avoid moral arguments ("God should have," "God would have," etc.). They are extremely relative and often inflammatory."

This is extremely important when dealing with Epicurus' riddle.

It certainly is, and I was thinking of Epicurus' riddle when I made that suggestion. Epicurus' riddle shares the same problem as any moral argument, and that is the extreme difficulty one finds in trying to establish an objective basis for morality. So again, I am unsure of how productive a discussion along those lines would be.

Of course, as it is with any of the suggestions I made, they are just suggestions. It would be great if someone was prepared to meet the challenges of such arguments as those I would avoid.

To a high school drop out electrons are merely an idea as well

I dropped out of high school.

Get everyone to accept his opinions as divine wisdom so we will all speak his language and never disagree with anything he has to say?

I'm just guessing...

I wonder where you got the impression that I'm trying to push some kind of political agenda. Frankly, you give me too much credit. I don't have the time or motivation to try to control anyone's opinion.

Anyway, I guess a "fruitful" discussion would ultimately give a conclusive answer to the question initially posed. I would certainly be satisfied merely with a thread that doesn't run in circles or degrade into a shouting match over whose belief system is more evil.