keyser_soze

And back to the point...Can you see from both sides of the argument that sagan spoke? How does it mould to your view?

CX

Confined by "materialistic assumptions"? Is that a far characterization? I can't speak for others, but I consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool materialist and yet I would argue that I arrived at materialism as a tentative conclusion. Granted the reasonable certainty of that conclusion in my mind is such that I tend to use it as a benchmark for truth claims, however, that is not the same as the a priori assumption of a materialist worldview.

Clutch

The lack of any hint of irony or self-awareness is the icing on the cake.

theophilus

It's really a shame that you guys are so easily impressed that you latch onto anything that seems to bolster your unbelief.

I will deal first with the statement by Sagan: As I poste d elsewhere, the assertion is self-referentially incoherent, i.e., it disproves itself.

If it is true that "claims that cannot be tested, etc." then this claim is clearly included, for it cannot be tested or disproven by any "scientific" means. Therefore, it defeats itself.

If the statement is false, "Claims which cannot be tested, etc" meaning all claims but this one, then it is also false because it acknowledges exceptions and has no right to be the only one.

It's live saying "there are no absolute moral values (except this one)"

As to the invisible, non-corporeal, heatless fire-spiting dragon, this is so full of holes it's silly.

First, invisibility implies materiality, i.e., something is "there" but cannot be seen. God is not invisible because he is not localized, i.e., he is not extended in space.

Second, Christians do not believe in a God who defies all detection. He is everywhere present with his creation and works regularly to accomplish his purpose according to his own will.

Third, God was revealed in Jesus, i.e., he took the form of a man.
Fourth, God is not said to do things which are meaningless (spitting heatless fire is self-contradictory).

This entire exercise in nonsense, while it might impress the children, is a gross case of confusing categories, i.e., apples and oranges.

For a different perspective on Sagan, go here http://www.trinityfoundation.org/rev...p?ID=068b.html (if you dare)

theophilus

It's not a question of whether it's "tentative" or not; the question is how you arrive at any conclusion?

You must use some system to arrive at your conclusions, tentative or otherwise.

If materialism is not you "a prior" assumption, i.e., the point from which you begin your thinking, then what is?

Like I said, what intellectual ether do you float around in?

theophilus

Please see my post above showing that Sagan's statement, like much of what he said, is a gratuitous, self-defeating "declaration" of a man who denied God's omniscience but seemed to claim it form himself.

Dr Rick

..*crackle...crackle...snap....fzzzzzZZZZZ.....BOO M!*

Oh, great...my irony meter just overloaded...

Hawkingfan

theo,
Then I take it you believe in Allah also?

Hawkingfan

That's why we have Occam's Razor to tell us what is reasonable or unreasonable to believe in the absence of any evidence or test whatsoever.

SimplyAtheistic

You are completely missing the point. It was not intended to directly correlate with christian defense of god. It was meant to illustrate the ridiculous statements that one could make in defense of such a being. It seems to me that god requires so much effort to believe in, that he wouldn't want his "children" to do so. Apologetics can twist reality to any degree they wish, but people can do that for about any god, or any magical creature.
Jake