Jayhawker Soule

If you accept that it is possible that some thing exists and functions in defiance of natural law, on what basis do you delimit its attributes or activities? To what extent does natural law then become, at worst an illusion, and at best a set of 'rules' unilaterally imposed by, wholly subservient to, and continuously dependent upon this deity? It seems to me that, once you grant its existence, your atheism is reduced to the speculative complaint: "I don't like your particular definition of God."

Miss Scarlett

I'm afraid I have to disagree with RD's postulation about denegration of atheism with the acceptance of possibilities. Or perhaps simply my definition of atheism is broad. Or perhaps that philosophy more properly fits in the "agnostic" category.

(Now that I've hedged all my bets...)

Although by the same arguments of irrationalty/inconsistency I do not believe that the god as defined in most western religions can exist, that does not stop me from accepting that there are things that exist far greater than my understanding. Possibly by our current definitions one of those things might fit the "god" criterion.

And speaking of unicorns...

In high school my physics teacher asked who in the class believed in unicorns. I raised my hand. The teacher then proceeded to illustrate how ridiculous and impractical I was and how I was an example of people whose lives would be unfulfilled as we would spend it searching for things that didn't exist. He was using this as an example of the scientific method separating fact from fantasy. Frustratingly (is that a word?) to me, he gave me no opportunity to rebut. Because to me, stating that I believed in unicorns was not saying that I thought if I remained pure and virginal and slept in the woods one would lay its head in my lap, but stating that I accepted a universe of near infinite possibility. And in my mind, far from being saddened by my failure to locate any unicorns, I would try to lead a life of greater depth in the pursuit of things possible. I would avoid complacence, and I would be willing to learn for the rest of my life.

One would have thought a teacher would have found this a *good* thing. Ah well.

Jayhawker Soule

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

( Sorry, Miss Scarlett, I just couldn't resist. Welcome to the forums! )

There is, in my opinion, a difference between "things that exist [that are] far greater than my understanding" and things that exist/operate in defiance of natural law.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Typhon,
I understand that this is a common position. However, it seems a bit unrealistic considering the nature of the topic. The sheer dimensionality of life and all it entails cannot be conveyed by mere scientific measurement. To quote a popular phrase: We are not building bridges here.

We could not really believe in things like love, logic, consiousness and faith if we were only to believe in things that were "recordable...and reviewed by our best scientific minds".


This (IMHO) is the shortcoming with the 'only believe in physical evidence' position. It cannot account for the vast amount of reality that can't be *physically* measured.


I assume you believe in things like logic, love, conscience, good n evil (maybe not the last 2)etc. Has anyone ever measured logic? Is there any empirical evidence for it? Could there EVER be evidence for it? Does it bug you that we can't even prove it? Doesn't it bug you that there exists a universal, abstract construct or entity that can't be proven yet you use it and rely on it everyday (hopefully).


How about your consciousness? It is an intangible, immeasurable, unprovable reality that is *completely* subjective...yet it is the *ONLY* thing you can hold as absolute truth. For your senses can trick or fail you, but the statement 'I am' is necessarily self evident...it can't be false. Yet you cannot prove (to me) or even begin to convey the complexity of your consciousness.


In short, physical evidence cannot account for a broad spectrum of man's reality. You don't require the same kind of evidence for love as you do for thermodynamics...but you require this for God. Frankly, this is an unrealistic requirement.

Certainly. In some sense my belief in God is scientific. That is: Given the world around us...God is the *best* theory that explains reality. Notice I didn't say 'prove'. For me to believe in something I need not prove it (see soapbox rant above) but it must be the best theory that accounts for all observed phenomena. For me this is God.

I see evidence for God on many levels: Logically, empirically, historically, morally and personally. I think we've all locked horns over the classic logical (First Cause), empirical (Design), historical (Jesus Christ) and moral(good and evil) arguments. Let me relay my personal evidence.


God is very real to me. There is a night and day difference in both me and my life since I gave up *my* philosophical high-horse of atheism (this is a slight towards me not you) and simply sought God. I see it. Others see it. I cannot ignore this huge piece of evidence.

In addition, I can personally attest that:
God's presence can absolutely be felt and recognized.
God does speak to us.
God helps us.

I have also noticed an almost unnerving correlation between A-me really needing (not just wanting) something B-me expressing this need to God and C-my need gets met.

It's almost uncanny how reliable this pattern is.
I used to marvel at it...now it doesn't suprise me anymore. This my friend is what 'faith' really is. Not faith that 'God exists' , but faith that 'God will provide for me'.

This probably smacks of irrational, backwoods hick, Fire-N-Brimstone, Old Time Family Gospel Hour sensationalism. It is not. I am a highly skeptic, highly educated mathematician/engineer who comes from a family of highly skeptic, highly educated mathematicians/engineers. I KNOW there are some people who blindly believe in God. I however, do not.


My .02


SOMMS

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

To quote a less popular phrase: bullpuckie! What is your evidence for God other than testimony of a placebo effect?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Doubt,
I referenced what I feel is 5 pieces of evidence for God. I specifically highlighted one (personal). Did you read the post?

SOMMS

Typhon

SOMMS,

We have yet to see this. This is your claim, I do not hold that the universe backs you on it.

I do not agree with you here. I hold that there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

And what exactly would this be? Please list this "vast amount" of things which you claim exist, and yet we can not apply either empiricism or science towards these processes, and still can say that "they exist."

Logic is no more mysterious than math. It is empirical, has rules, and can be tested. Please show how logic is something we have to take "on faith." I certainly don't, nor do I find it the least bit mysterious.

Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Or perhaps I should say, I strongly differ in both my understanding of the issue and in my experience of what consciousness is, as well as how it is understood by science.

As for love, I've addressed this previously in several posts. Love is an understandable, testable, explainable phenomena. Of all the three you've listed here, love is the weakest example of your claim.

"I am" is merely a statement, written or vocalized in a human language. I am afraid it doesn't have nearly the significance you seek to impose upon it. A fictional character in one of my books can say "I am" all he or she wants, and they still remain a fictional character, a figment of my imagination, nothing more. I can say "I am" about something, and that statement can be demonstratively false, if "I am" not which I claim. I fail to see your point here and I don't see any real importance to, or evidence of, this claim.

Prove or convey what exactly? I am conscious, this can be ascertained through a series of various tests, ranging from the simple to the highly complex and invasive. The electrical activity in my brain is understandable to me, and I'm not even a neurologist or cognitive scientist, and purely the result of natural processes. Provided I have some way to communicate, I can respond to testing/stimuli and report my own state of mind, observations, and answer questions put to me by a researcher or expert on the subject. This is aside from even the battery of procedures that can be brought to bear, ranging from brain scans to chemical analysis. I can demonstrate my consciousness quite well thank you. I don't necessarily think my "consciousness" is in and of itself as "complex" and certainly not magical in any respect. My brain and nervous system however, is indeed complex, and can shown to be, by comparison with other organisms. Again however, nothing that is not empirically able to be tested and understood by naturalistic processes.

In short I'm afraid you've shown nothing of the kind. Again, these are your claims, not mine. I refute them, and can honestly say you are certainly incorrect, at least in regards to me and many others of my species. I require no fundamentally different evidence for testing the hypothesis of god or gods than I do for love or thermodynamics. All three should be able to bear the weight of empirical examination and critical thinking. All three do, but in the case of the former, we simply see that there is no good evidence for holding a positive belief, hence atheism as a default position in light of the failure of evidential support.

.T.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ty
It is empirical? When is the last time you observed and/or measured 'logic'. How can one test 'logic'? More curiously...what would you use to test logic and what would you be testing it against?

To point: logic is NOT empirical. It can't be physically observed, measured or metered.

Conversely, all the rules of logic are built upon core axioms. These can't be proven true or false...simply stated and accepted as truth.

Thus logic itself at its most basic core is a statement of 'faith'...that these axioms are true.

Really? Consciousness IS tangible? How? Consciousness IS measurable?? What units are you using? You can PROVE your consiousness exists to other parties? I'd like to see that proof.


This, of course is a matter of completely subjectivity and opinion. But I'll listen. Go ahead Ty...prove love exists.


SOMMS

Miss Scarlett

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
[QB]

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

( Sorry, Miss Scarlett, I just couldn't resist. Welcome to the forums! )

Hehe...You now tempt me to add, "As god is my witness," although my California accent doesn't always lend itself well to Southern drawl.

Plus there was never any sign that god cared one way or the other if the dispossessed southern belle ate turnips or dirt clods.

Philosoft

This is goofy, SOMMS: This is actually less goofy than the rest.

Do you know why axioms are, er, axiomatic? Because it is inconceivable that they cannot be true. Go ahead, try to imagine an example of a violation of the law of identity.

Bah, sophistry. You'll have to do better than that.