Normal

It's weird, because it's no more ridiculous then people who study language, or aviation, or scuba diving, or dinosaurs to base their knowledge of those respective fields to the existence of god.

Automatic was an extremely bad choice of words, I apologize to everyone.

Hawkingfan

What does the study of *anything* have to do with it? Many atheists don't study science at all. They lack the belief in god because there is no emperical evidence to persuade them to believe in god. There is nothing weird about anyone lacking a belief in god, whether they study science or not. It comes down to evidence to merit a belief.

Normal

Yes, and those are not the people I'm talking about.

The "weirdness" I'm refering to is the people who DO study science and come to the conclusion that god does not exist, BASED on science.

Obviously all atheists are not "weird" like that.

Hawkingfan

So it seems you're giving the old theist argument that states that god is outside of science. To me, that is weird. You would have to prove how that is possible. And even if god existed outside of science, then our universe would suffer none of the consequences of his existence.

Wyz_sub10

Really? I would have called it an assertion.

I'm just busting your chops a little. I realize you're just trying to make a comparison to emphasize complexity.

But if the discussion is attempting to ascertain whether it is possible for something to be unknowable, then trying to assume a comparative level of complexity kinda begs the question.

On another front, one might argue that Shakespeare is only unknowable to ants now, but may be accessible to intelligent ants thousands of millenia from know.

IOW, it is only unknowable at this time, not as an absolute.

Normal

There are A LOT of things outside of science. Language, politics, poetry, "love", "evil", etc. etc. etc.

Even to ape the soul argument, logic exists OUTSIDE of science. It is not provable by science, it just IS.

Just because something exists outside of science doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't have proof, is not arguable, etc. etc.

For the record, I'm refering to people who strongly base their belief against god on science. If they have other reasons I wouldn't call it "weird".

Normal

You would be correct. It seems I'm just full of un-provable assertions doesn't it.

I'm not strictly talking about knowledge that's completely unknowable, just unknowable to humans, given our environment, the reasoning of our brains, the limitations of our senses, etc.

That's true, and in the same manner we might evolve to come to know things that are currently unknowable to us now.

Hawkingfan

Fallacy.
Reification / Hypostatization
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

BTW, language is extremely scientific. You can hear it, you can write it, you can identify where it came from, and the part of the brain that uses it. Same with poetry.

The concepts of love and evil are abstract and entirely in your brain. They are extremely subjective.

Hawkingfan

You're commiting the same fallacy. Logic comes from our brains. It is nothing supernatural or beyond the realm of science. By the same token, god only exists in your head.

Hawkingfan

Please name something known to exist outside of science that you cannot taste, feel, smell, hear, or touch; something known to exist outside of science that cannot be proved by scientific abstraction; cannot be proved by experiments, observation, and mathematics; something that is not an abstract idea in your brain; something that has no fundamental quality of science.