Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 04-08-2003, 05:26 PM

[

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
Strawman. I don't think the druggies are saying that what they are seeing is not an illusion.

It doesn't matter, because while they may see it as illusory in retrospect, they don't see it during the event, because their consciousness is lowered to the point where they can't. The question, then, is whether my consciousness is sufficient to determine whether what appears to be extant really is.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that what a druggie says he sees on a trip really exists outside of his hallucinations?

Of course not.

Quote:

Scientific evidence is verified by observation, mathematics, experiments, and the senses. These are accepted ways of verifying evidence.

The problem is that any belief in any such verification is almost always dependent on the perceptions of others. You likely believe that atoms consist mainly of protons, neutrons, and electrons without having any direct knowledge of this. You've never seen an electron.

yguy · 04-08-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alix Nenuphar
As you imply: a totally useless definition. Is this really all you have to go on? A small child could make the same statement about a parent.

Interesting point, considering that the awesome majesty of the Creator is infinitely greater from the perspective of the noblest human you can think of than is the awe in which that person is held by the child.

Quote:

I fail to see how this discussion can have any meaning unless we have some clear terminology. Let's try leading questions...

Do you consider God to be:
omniscient?
omnipotent?
omnibenevolent?
omnipresent?

I will stipulate that He is all those things for the sake of argument, insofar as the definitions of these terms make sense. For instance, God's omnipotence could be construed to mean He could create evil. I couldn't go for that.

Quote:

Do you feel that attempting to define our understanding of God in this fashion is meaningful?

I don't see how, frankly. To define is to limit. How do you limit the unlimitable?

Quote:

At the moment, you don't appear to be making any sort of point, argument, or comment - you seem to be here for the purpose of annoying Hawkingfan.

Actually, I'm hoping to annoy everyone here.

Quote:

Although if you are trying to make the point that all empirical evidence is questionable, then surely your belief in the existence of God is equally questionable?

From your POV, that is certainly true. From my POV, it would make as much sense as questioning my own existence.

Philosoft · 04-08-2003, 05:50 PM

Je. Bus.

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
With that in mind, you demand proof of God's existence on what basis?

God isn't a theory?

Quote:

The probability of a theory being correct?? What a preposterous idea, likely dreamed up by egotistical members of the scientific priestcraft to justify their grant money. Yet more evidence of the subjectivist insanity pervading the empiricist paradigm.

A joke, yes? For this cannot possibly be your actual position. Conspiracy theories or presumptions of mass hysteria that implicate the entirety of the scientific community? I would like to laugh now. Please assure me you aren't serious.

yguy · 04-08-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
God isn't a theory?

As much a theory as was the existence of EM radiation before it was verified.

Quote:

A joke, yes? For this cannot possibly be your actual position. Conspiracy theories or presumptions of mass hysteria that implicate the entirety of the scientific community? I would like to laugh now. Please assure me you aren't serious.

I have no reason to think my specific allegation is correct. I have plenty of reason to think that the idea of a theory having a "probability of correctness" is insane. Because it is - insane on its face. It's a psychological trick meant to mask ignorance.

What was the probability that Copernicus was correct according to the scientific consensus of the day? Practically nil, I would guess.

Tabula_rasa · 04-09-2003, 05:55 AM

You have equated the concept of God to a theory. Therefore, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your theory.

When we ask for evidence of Gravity, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. When we ask for evidence of Electromagnetics, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. And so on with all of the theories of science.

We are now confronted with God. Please provide your evidence so that we can repeat the tests in our makeshift labs and validate your theory.

Tabula_rasa

Hawkingfan · 04-09-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
With that in mind, you demand proof of God's existence on what basis?

Proof that the theory is correct to a high degree of probability. And you and the church would have a much better leg to stand on if the bible wasn't full of scientifically incorrect information. Some of the scientific "facts" in the bible are laughable.

Quote:

The probability of a theory being correct?? What a preposterous idea, likely dreamed up by egotistical members of the scientific priestcraft to justify their grant money. Yet more evidence of the subjectivist insanity pervading the empiricist paradigm.[/B]

That's your opinion.

Quote:

May I infer from this that you are not a scientist?[/B]

How would you know what a scientist is? You don't even know what science is. You don't even know what a rock is.

Quote:

And how exactly is this different from saying, "If we don't know God's doing it, He isn't doing it"?[/B]

It's not saying that at all. It's saying we know that "god" has nothing to do with our reality. If he exists and he's doing anything, it has nothing to do with us.

Quote:

Well, now, pilgrim, that all depends on who the scientist was, don't it? Wasn't there a scientist or two who thought Copernicus was crazy? [/B]

Another strawman. That does nothing to falsify my original statement.

Hawkingfan · 04-09-2003, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
It doesn't matter, because while they may see it as illusory in retrospect, they don't see it during the event, because their consciousness is lowered to the point where they can't. The question, then, is whether my consciousness is sufficient to determine whether what appears to be extant really is.

The answer to your question is "yes".

Quote:

The problem is that any belief in any such verification is almost always dependent on the perceptions of others. You likely believe that atoms consist mainly of protons, neutrons, and electrons without having any direct knowledge of this. You've never seen an electron. [/B]

That is why the evidence must be repeatable. That is why we have the Scientific Method. That is why observation must have supporting mathematical evidence. That is why all theories are challenged.
There are such things as particle detectors and particle accelerators. There are such things as photon detectors. We can see the cloud chamber of atoms quite easily. Some theories are based on mathematics alone, which is perfectly fine. Black holes were theorized this way. It wasn't until much later after the mathematics, that they were seen in space.

Mageth · 04-09-2003, 08:35 AM

You likely believe that atoms consist mainly of protons, neutrons, and electrons without having any direct knowledge of this. You've never seen an electron.

Look here. And here.

Need I find more evidence?

yguy · 04-09-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tabula_rasa
You have equated the concept of God to a theory.

I don't remember doing that. Produce the quote, please.

Quote:

When we ask for evidence of Gravity, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. When we ask for evidence of Electromagnetics, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. And so on with all of the theories of science.

Joh 3:8

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

If any adjective could be rightly used to describe God, repeatable would not be the one.

Quote:

We are now confronted with God. Please provide your evidence so that we can repeat the tests in our makeshift labs and validate your theory.

I'm not here to provide such evidence. If you can't see it in a thunderstorm, a tree, a child, or the mirror, no way in hell will you see it in a million lines of text.

I'm here to expose lies as best I can, not so much to be a proclaimer of truths.

yguy · 04-09-2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
You likely believe that atoms consist mainly of protons, neutrons, and electrons without having any direct knowledge of this. You've never seen an electron.

Look here. And here.

Need I find more evidence?

I didn't say there was no evidence, I said you have no direct knowledge of it. If you see a picture of me, have you seen me?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2003, 05:55 AM	#65
Tabula_rasa Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: East of Dumbville, MA Posts: 144	You have equated the concept of God to a theory. Therefore, it is up to you to provide evidence to support your theory. When we ask for evidence of Gravity, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. When we ask for evidence of Electromagnetics, we find repeatable tests that validate the theory. And so on with all of the theories of science. We are now confronted with God. Please provide your evidence so that we can repeat the tests in our makeshift labs and validate your theory. Tabula_rasa

04-09-2003, 08:35 AM	#68
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You likely believe that atoms consist mainly of protons, neutrons, and electrons without having any direct knowledge of this. You've never seen an electron. Look here. And here. Need I find more evidence?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.