Why is the Religion forum so popular on a Science Board?

[S.A.M.]

Yes, but is there a god?

All of your solutions to the above question are based on an inherent logic involved in the complex interaction of man, weather, and shovel. All measurable, observable, practical things.

Let's just add a few to point out some absurdities:

*God ordered half of them to stop halfway through.
*An angel came down and took pity on them and finished the job for them in a millisecond.
*They prayed for god to open the earth for them and thus it was granted.
*Satan appeared, laughed, and turned the dirt they were digging into granite.

Etc.

Yes, it is also an example of the fallacies of thinking only inductively, which of course, you missed.

*Adds supe to the list of literal atheists with ltd lateral capacities*

This may actually be a breakthrough... hmm I wonder if anyone would fund a research proposal on estimating the balance of inductive vs abductive reasoning in atheists and theists.

 

[superluminal]

I highlighted the relevant line in your quoted post.

How do you know:

Sam. We know nothing for certain. There is a possibility that god as advertised in a christians religion or yours exists. This is only because we can't disprove some god because we can't ever claim to know all there is aboout the apparently infinite cosmos.

Having said that, there are weights a reasonable and honest person assigns to certain things based on his current understanding of the cosmos and as much historical and scientific evidence as he can muster.

Nothing objective in my or your experience indicates, unequivocally, that god is responsible for one damn phenomenon in the universe. There are things we don't yet understand but this is zero reason to assign it to a god, especially one so well defined as xianity or islam would have ue believe.

This is such a simple statement of truth that I fail to see how any one can argue with it.

Accept for yourself that your god exists. That's super. But simply admit that the possibility certainly exists that there is no diety, at least as much as the possibility that one does.

Come now. That can't be so hard?

 

[superluminal]

*Adds supe to the list of literal atheists with ltd lateral capacities*

Yes.

*Thought about but reconsidered taking sam off of his list of theists with limited or no critical capacities*

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam. We know nothing for certain. There is a possibility that god as advertised in a christians religion or yours exists. This is only because we can't disprove some god because we can't ever claim to know all there is aboout the apparently infinite cosmos.

Having said that, there are weights a reasonable and honest person assigns to certain things based on his current understanding of the cosmos and as much historical and scientific evidence as he can muster.

Nothing objective in my or your experience indicates, unequivocally, that god is responsible for one damn phenomenon in the universe. There are things we don't yet understand but this is zero reason to assign it to a god, especially one so well defined as xianity or islam would have ue believe.

This is such a simple statement of truth that I fail to see how any one can argue with it.

Accept for yourself that your god exists. That's super. But simply admit that the possibility certainly exists that there is no diety, at least as much as the possibility that one does.

Come now. That can't be so hard?

Is there a possibility that what we perceive is a trick of the mind? That nothing actually exists?

Do you understand that your logic also denies the probability of anything actually existing, including yourself?

 

[superluminal]

Is there a possibility that what we perceive is a trick of the mind? That nothing actually exists?

Do you understand that your logic also denies the probability of anything actually existing, including yourself?

Sam. There are pragmatists and philosophers. I am not a philosopher. You can debate my "logic" all you want, and deflect the points of my questions (you failed to address even one of my points in the last post) as you usually do.

Your statement contains an absurdity BTW. If you assume your mind to exist (pretty faulty assumption for such a philosopher as yourself) then "nothing actually existing" is a rather silly conclusion.

 

[Michael]

How do you know:

I can not "know" anything other than my own existence, so no I do not "know" such isn't the case.

While everyone here would agree, I think, that such is the case, I also think everyone here would agree that there are no fairy creatures sitting on the shoulders of someone whispering something from FSM.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam. There are pragmatists and philosophers. I am not a philosopher. You can debate my "logic" all you want, and deflect the points of my questions (you failed to address even one of my points in the last post) as you usually do.

Your statement contains an absurdity BTW. If you assume your mind to exist (pretty faulty assumption for such a philosopher as yourself) then "nothing actually existing" is a rather silly conclusion.

Not if you think about it hard enough; get away from the YES and NO.

e.g. what you said here:

Having said that, there are weights a reasonable and honest person assigns to certain things based on his current understanding of the cosmos and as much historical and scientific evidence as he can muster.

Nothing objective in my or your experience indicates, unequivocally, that god is responsible for one damn phenomenon in the universe. There are things we don't yet understand but this is zero reason to assign it to a god, especially one so well defined as xianity or islam would have ue believe.

assumes that you would actually be able:
1. to objectively assess such a phenomenon
2. to recognise or perceive it.

 

[Michael]

With this in mind, I think it becomes clear why a good starting point in any religous discussion may be: Does the possibility exist there is no God?

 

[S.A.M.]

With this in mind, I think it becomes clear why a good starting point in any religous discussion may be: Does the possibility exist there is no God?

:shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

I can not "know" anything other than my own existence, so no I do not "know" such isn't the case.

While everyone here would agree, I think, that such is the case, I also think everyone here would agree that there are no fairy creatures sitting on the shoulders of someone whispering something from FSM.

So you "know" this because you "know" everyone here would agree to what you know.

IOW, your "knowing" is baseless.

 

[superluminal]

With this in mind, I think it becomes clear why a good starting point in any religous discussion may be: Does the possibility exist there is no God?

No, Michael. You see, it's physically impossible for a theist to admit such a thing, even though it's blatantly obvious to the rest of us. This is because to do such a thing would instantly collapse the house of cards they call their "faith".

Notice that sam has sidestepped the entire question through multiple posts.

 

[superluminal]

assumes that you would actually be able:
1. to objectively assess such a phenomenon
2. to recognise or perceive it.

Right. How impenetrable a fortress of belief you all have constructed.

In order to even begin to assess the idea of a god, one must take the position that such a thing would be somehow assessable or percievable in the first place.

How silly, to even suggest that something that so many "believe" in fervently, might be observable to an objective witness. The question is moot befor it's even asked.

Bravo theists, bravo.

 

[Michael]

So you "know" this because you "know" everyone here would agree to what you know.

IOW, your "knowing" is baseless.

No I was using know as it is used commonly and I also qualified the statement of using know before hand.

 

[Michael]

Notice that sam has sidestepped the entire question through multiple posts.

I hadn't noticed!

 

[S.A.M.]

No, Michael. You see, it's physically impossible for a theist to admit such a thing, even though it's blatantly obvious to the rest of us. This is because to do such a thing would instantly collapse the house of cards they call their "faith".

Notice that sam has sidestepped the entire question through multiple posts.

Right. How impenetrable a fortress of belief you all have constructed.

In order to even begin to assess the idea of a god, one must take the position that such a thing would be somehow assessable or percievable in the first place.

How silly, to even suggest that something that so many "believe" in fervently, might be observable to an objective witness. The question is moot befor it's even asked.

Bravo theists, bravo.

Thats the difference between step-by-step inference and reasoning based on available observations.

Its not a new paradigm that you are knocking against, there is plenty of work already done on this. Though going by prominent atheists (and several ones on this board), they prefer to argue from a position of ignorance.

 

[Michael]

You "know" SAM there are many agnostic theists - it's not a bad starting point.

 

[S.A.M.]

No I was using know as it is used commonly and I also qualified the statement of using know before hand.

So the entire post was meaningless?

Oh what a surprise!

 

[superluminal]

Thats the difference between step-by-step inference and reasoning based on available observations.

Its not a new paradigm that you are knocking against, there is plenty of work already done on this. Though going by prominent atheists (and several ones on this board), they prefer to argue from a position of ignorance.

Sam, whatever are you talking about?

So what you are saying is that reasoning based on available evidence makes it obvious that there is a god, or that step-by-step inference does?

And by "plenty of work already done on this" you mean the clear and positive results of theistic research into god?

 

[superluminal]

BTW, sam... Is it possible that there is no god?

 

[S.A.M.]

You "know" SAM there are many agnostic theists - it's not a bad starting point.

Do I? Never met one. I personally feel agnosticism is like saying I believe in evolution, but I'm still waiting on the evidence to be certain (without ever bothering to look at the evidence or recognising it for what it is); meanwhile I also cling to ID and creationism and what have you.

In other words, the way the universe is structured, its inherently fine tuned mechanism of functioning, the supreme logic that runs through it, does not encourage agnosticism. You either believe there is a universal force underlying it or you believe its all random chance which just happens to fall into the patterns we observe. And then spend your time using trial and error to prove theories on the basis that the randomness is only in the beginning/formation/creation/maintenance of it (if you are an atheist) or understand that its not random and simply awaiting the right tools and experiments (if you are a theist)