An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

Bahai panentheism is very close to classical theism.

However, I don't see anywhere in panentheism where God either 1) intervenes in human history or 2) communicates with individual humans. If you can provide references about that, I'd appreciate it.

That's a very interesting question. I'll have to do a little research on that topic. However, for purposes of this particular thread and physics theory, God's intervention is simply a "given", or at least the "possibility" of such intervention is a given. I've even proposed the physical mechanism that is responsible for that intervention process, specifically the EM field.

In both Western and Eastern Christianity, the belief is that God sustains the universe. The universe continues to exist only because God continuously wills the universe to exist. I have seen this relationship described as "panentheism". If that is the case, then there isn't a need for the separate word "panentheism".

Wouldn't the fact that the universe requires that sustaining influence preclude anyone from claiming God doesn't physically intervene in human affairs?

It does not follow that, if pantheism is true, then God has a personality. There is no requirement for the universe to have a personality.

Well, if God is the physical universe and alive, then the universe has a "personality", just as the chemicals in our body ultimately have a combined 'personality'. Individually no single atom may possess that "personality" but when the whole being is considered, it does have personality.

If you meant "panentheism is true", then you're right it doesn't require the universe to be alive, or to have a personality. It's more akin to an 'intelligent design" that allows the creator to interact with it's creation, more like an internet than a living organism. We'll just call any such scenario an example of an 'intelligently designed" universe.

In the sense that those uncounted trillions of electronic circuits in space *could* represent life *or* intelligent design, it still has to be one or the other. There are no other examples of such sophisticated circuitry on Earth that isn't either a part of a living organism, or was created by a living organism.

It appears that you are grafting the separate idea of theism onto pantheism. That God/universe has a personality is something that must be demonstrated under pantheism. It cannot be assumed.

I agree that it can't be "assumed", but it's certainly a possibility.

Since experience of the universe is intersubjective (the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances), then the "personality" of God would be perceived the same by everyone. Just as gravity, the double helix of DNA, embryonic stem cells, or anything else of the universe is perceived the same by everyone.

Hmm. We all pretty much experience the President the same way don't we? We certainly don't all agree on every aspect of his "personality".

I believe this is the case. What we can possiby do is measure the effect, but not necessarily measure the force.

Are you simply "assuming" that it's not a "standard" force, one we're already familiar with? Why?

The reason I say "possibly" and emphasize it is because, in Judeo-Christianity, God sustains the universe. If God withdraws His will momentarily and in singular instances from part of the universe, how do we measure that?

I dunno, perhaps the power goes off and the suns all go dark?

Science is set up to measure repeated phenomenon, such as the force of gravity or the strong nuclear force. The singular manipulation of the Resurrection is not open to scientific measurement, for instance.

Perhaps God's intervention at the Resurrection was or was not "measurable", but Thomas certainly touched Jesus after he came back to life didn't he? The other apostles talked to him after the Resurrection didn't they? Didn't Thomas actually "measure" and feel his physical body in that way? What do you mean exactly by measuring? How can you be sure you couldn't have "measured" it had you been standing there with exactly the right equipment?

Also, God can manipulate in ways that are undetectable in the background.

Do we have to "assume" the influence is *necessarily* 'undetectable" to us?

For instance, Richard Dawkins (of all people) has pointed out that God could have (and continue to do so) particular mutations in order to guide evolution. It is not difficult for God to guide a particular cosmic ray to interact with the genome of an individual to produce a particular mutation. However, we cannot possibly detect that among all the non-manipulated mutations. It's a signal vs noise detection problem.

In certain instances (like the one you mentioned), sure. In the case of Jesus however, that intervention was a little more obvious wouldn't you agree?

Life from non-life has been done. I described how and provided references. Do you want me to do it again?

I'm not sure how you're personally defining "life". Are you able to create entire single celled organisms over some period of time, or just some RNA building block type processes that you're calling 'life', that you believe will evolve into single celled organisms over some period of time?

So, now that it has "actually happens", what does that do to your assumption?

Nothing actually. I would assume that awareness is an integral part of nature, a function of nature/God. It manifests itself inside of living organisms if the chemistry is just right. I'd assume that there are ways to 'tap into' that awareness, both physically and through chemistry specifically.

Please detail for us the "awareness" of a pebble beside the road. Or detail for us the "awareness" of a drop of rain. Thank you.

"Awareness" seems to involve "current" or at least 'chemical processing'. I'm not sure an individualized atom, or drop of water is necessarily "aware". In the sense that the universe itself may be/is aware (in pantheism), then it's "awareness' if simply a function of God's awareness. Do you believe that there is drop of rain that God is not "aware" of?

 

[lucaspa]

That is actually food for thought. More often than not it seems as though the majority of the atheists I meet "lack belief" in a specific theistic concept, typically the one they were first indoctrinated into.

How many concepts of "God" are there left? Most atheists on CF accept the general background of Judeo-Christianity: that Judeo-Christians have managed to find reasons that all other deities except Yahweh do not exist. In Western culture, "God" essentially means Yahweh.

Some atheists, rightly, point out that Judeo-Christians are atheists in regard to all other deities. They proclaim that they "just" disbelieve in one more deity than we do. There is some truth in that. However, what atheists should consider is
1) How did theists over the centuries decide that other deities did nto exist? After all, it was theists who did this.
2) Why, since theists have "falsified" most other forms of deity, do they not consider Yahweh falsified? The idea of credulity simply does not stand critical examination. Theists who thought that the Greek pantheon or Mithra existed decided that they did not. They used critical examination there. BUT, they converted to Christianity. So why did they not decide that Yahweh was also false?

One's "lack of belief/not believe" does typically seem to come with a lot of individualized baggage.

For many atheists, there is a hatred of Christianity the religion. They hate what they perceive to be bad acts on the part of individual Christians or individual Christian denominations. Granting such bad behavior, critical examination would reveal that this does not invalidate the reality of deity in general or Yahweh in particular. They would not accept that Galileo's bad behavior invalidates heliocentrism or, for the liberals among them, that Anthony Weiner's sexting invalidates the ideals of liberalism. Again, the idea or entity is independent of the people who advocate the idea or entity.

 

[roach]

Where did 'awareness' come from? For instance, why does single cell animal 'hunt' for food? How does it even become "aware" of food without a 'brain' of any sort?

I'd be willing to agree that "intelligence" seems to 'increase' over time, but it also seems to me that all genetic mutations and features are designed to serve and facilitate "awareness" in living things.

It seems to me that "awareness" is an integral part of physical reality, and it simply finds various ways to manifest itself inside microscopic organisms of ever increasing complexity over time.

I think you've hit on a very interesting point. The use of agency words like 'hunt' or 'try' or 'designed' to describe the actions of living things seems to have led to a lot of misunderstanding. The exact distinction between living and non-living seem a bit arbitrary when you look at what people actually mean by 'life', even among scientists. Further, this distinction seems to lie at the heart many debates about traditional interpretations of soul, free-will, etc.

 

[oriel36]

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832,

The quote in your signature is interesting but is many magnitudes weaker than Galileo's use of it through the version of St Augustine -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." St Augustine

This holds for Christians as much as those who lead uninspiring lives through their own weaknesses for the greater the Christian love the more the works found in the Bible and outside of it will make sense for sometimes the heart instructs the head.

 

[Non sequitur]

Some atheists, rightly, point out that Judeo-Christians are atheists in regard to all other deities. They proclaim that they "just" disbelieve in one more deity than we do. There is some truth in that. However, what atheists should consider is
1) How did theists over the centuries decide that other deities did nto exist? After all, it was theists who did this.
2) Why, since theists have "falsified" most other forms of deity, do they not consider Yahweh falsified? The idea of credulity simply does not stand critical examination. Theists who thought that the Greek pantheon or Mithra existed decided that they did not. They used critical examination there. BUT, they converted to Christianity. So why did they not decide that Yahweh was also false?

Constantine.

The Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius, "... we should let both the Christians and all others follow whatever religion they wanted to, so that whatever God there is in heaven may be happy and pleased with us and with all our subjects."

Not really about religion, but, as with everything, politics, money and power.

Whatever god helped him win the battles.

 

[lucaspa]

I may not understand "god" well enough to say one way or the other. Or I may lack enough information to test any claims. Or I may simply not care enough to think about it.

If it is any of those 3, then the proper answer is "I don't know".

Lack belief =/= I believe.

This assertion is meaningless in the face of the evidence presented that we do indeed use "lack belief" for "believe in the opposite"

Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true.

Notice what you said: "disbelief". Yes, disbelief in the truth of a proposition is indeed saying you believe the proposition is false and you believe the opposite is true. For instance:
I disbelieve the earth is flat. That does mean you do not believe the earth is flat. It also means "I believe the earth is not flat."

From Merriam-Webster online: disbelief: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue"

That "mental rejection of something as untrue" is the same as "belief that the proposition is false".

How did you get from thinking theism is wrong, to atheism being a faith?

I didn't. Atheism is a faith. However, because theism has always been presented as a faith, and atheists think it is wrong, many atheists have (falsely) concluded that faith itself = wrong.

You seem to be saying "opposition against something" is now a faith, merely because it opposes something.

Not because it opposes something, but due to the type of evidence used. For instance, there is no intersubjective, objective evidence for my belief the Vikings will not go to the Superbowl this season. To be able to "prove" that at this stage, I would have to see the future. However, I can point to personal experience and interpretation of that experience as reasons for the belief.

I think SpaghettiO's smell like vomit, yet some people like them.

Which I think is wrong.

If someone then placed me in a faith "group" of people, because of that, I would find it odd and unnecessary.

Really, why? Isn't "think" here equivalent to "believe"? You believe it is wrong for people to like SpaghettiOs. Why isn't your belief knowledge? Why do you only "think" it is wrong instead of know it is wrong? I submit the reason is that your experience is not intersubjective. Your evidence is not intersubjective. The existence of people who like the smell of SphaghettiOs means you have contrary evidence presented.

We believe when our evidence is personal experience that is not intersubjective.

 

[Non sequitur]

This assertion is meaningless in the face of the evidence presented that we do indeed use "lack belief" for "believe in the opposite"

If I lack belief in leprechauns, then I believe in the opposite of leprechauns.

Or if I lack a belief in leprechauns, then I believe the opposite of having a belief about the belief in leprechauns... which is lacking a belief in leprechauns?

I believe in non-leprechauns?

This makes no sense.


In the above, replace "leprechauns" with "SassyPants the Magnificent".

Now I believe the opposite of the belief in SassyPants the Magnificent... so, what the crap do I believe, exactly?

I hold no affirmative position about the previously mentioned SassyP (my nickname).

Now, replace "SassyPants the Magnificent" with <nothing>.

So, now I believe there is no <nothing>.

Or was it, I believe in the opposite of <nothing>, which is <nothing>?

Notice what you said: "disbelief". Yes, disbelief in the truth of a proposition is indeed saying you believe the proposition is false and you believe the opposite is true. For instance:
I disbelieve the earth is flat. That does mean you do not believe the earth is flat. It also means "I believe the earth is not flat."

Slow your roll there, partner.

First, the Earth is here *taps on the ground* and we know what "flat" is *holds up a ruler*. You can't quickly swap out natural things for supernatural things and then expect the analogy to work...

Second, believing one proposition is false, does not mean I believe the opposite is true.

If I don't believe Coke is the best soft drink, I'm not forced to believe Mountain Dew is the best soft drink.

I didn't. Atheism is a faith. However, because theism has always been presented as a faith, and atheists think it is wrong, many atheists have (falsely) concluded that faith itself = wrong.

Atheism is not a faith.

Christians have faith that there is a god (and all the other stuff that goes with it) for very different reasons that I have faith that my car will start.

Christianity = Proper Vehicle Maintenance?

Really, why? Isn't "think" here equivalent to "believe"? You believe it is wrong for people to like SpaghettiOs. Why isn't your belief knowledge? Why do you only "think" it is wrong instead of know it is wrong? I submit the reason is that your experience is not intersubjective. Your evidence is not intersubjective. The existence of people who like the smell of SphaghettiOs means you have contrary evidence presented.

We believe when our evidence is personal experience that is not intersubjective.

SpaghettiO's exist on the store shelves. Gods do not.

That's why I can believe they are putrid.

I think it is, "wrong for people to like SpaghettiOs", in the same way that I think it is "wrong for large women to wear too-tight clothing."

Not empirically wrong. Some dudes dig that.

*yak*

 

[Michael]

I think you've hit on a very interesting point. The use of agency words like 'hunt' or 'try' or 'designed' to describe the actions of living things seems to have led to a lot of misunderstanding. The exact distinction between living and non-living seem a bit arbitrary when you look at what people actually mean by 'life', even among scientists. Further, this distinction seems to lie at the heart many debates about traditional interpretations of soul, free-will, etc.

IMO it's actually a more "basic" question about the source of awareness, and how awareness manifests itself in even supposedly "simple" lifeforms.

Even single-celled organisms feed themselves in 'smart' manner

The researchers then subjected the amoebae to various choices of nutrients, each time comprising a protein-rich and a sugar-rich source in varying proportions (without offering them their "optimal" diet). The results demonstrated that the amoebae are capable of reconstituting the ideal diet required for their growth from these two sources. In fact, they move until they cover the nutrient sources so as to absorb twice as much protein as sugar. Their nutrient intake thus remains constant and unchanging, whatever the choice proposed. In a final experiment, eleven different food sources, once again containing variable quantities of protein and sugar, were offered to the amoebae. Most of the amoebae succeeded in selecting the food source containing twice as much protein as sugar.

That is pretty sophisticated dietary behavior for a single celled organism don't you think?

 

[quatona]

If it is any of those 3, then the proper answer is "I don't know".

Yes, but "knowledge" is a completely different parameter than "belief".

 

[Nostromo]

What I am saying is that some atheists mean "I believe God does not exist" but they invert it to "I lack belief that God exists" as a means of avoiding admitting that atheism is a belief/faith. What I am pointing out that it means that to the hearers. You missed that. In all other cases, when we say "lack belief", what we mean is "I believe (the opposite)".

Who is "we"? You might, but why are you projecting that onto everyone else?

However, some atheists (usually the militant ones), have made the equation that faith/belief = wrong. They have done so by theism admitting it is a faith, and those atheists insist theism is wrong. It appears that, for them, it is important that atheism not be a faith, because that would be saying it is wrong.

It doesn't matter how important it is to whoever whether it is or isn't, atheism isn't a faith.

I don't know. There you have a true neutral position. I, pardon the phrase, "lack information" to formulate a belief.

So it would be fair to say that you don't believe Leeds will be promoted, and you also don't believe they won't be promoted?

 

[Michael]

Yes, but "knowledge" is a completely different parameter than "belief".

Could you elaborate a bit? For instance, mainstream astronomers "believe" that they have "knowledge" about "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" and the starting date of something called a "big bang". They write about such things every single day. In that instance, how would knowledge and "belief" be completely different?

 

[quatona]

Could you elaborate a bit? For instance, mainstream astronomers "believe" that they have "knowledge" about "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" and the starting date of something called a "big bang". They write about such things every single day. In that instance, how would knowledge and "belief" be completely different?

Well, if they make a claim about their knowledge they make a statement about knowledge.
You may want to reread the context of the discussion in which I posted the statement you quoted. It was about stating your belief/lack of belief/disbelief in something (which is not claiming knowledge), and suddenly the poster moved the goalposts and introduced "I don´t know" as another option - which is a completely different issue. Actually, it even seems to me that making a statement concerning your beliefs or lack thereof this is an implied concession that you don´t know. Else you wouldn´t have to believe.

(I do understand that you don´t want to miss any opportunity to attack certain scientists, and you are invited to do so whereever it fits - but, sorry, here it´s just besides the point).

 

[Michael]

Well, if they make a claim about their knowledge they make a statement about knowledge.
You may want to reread the context of the discussion in which I posted the statement you quoted. It was about stating your belief/lack of belief/disbelief in something (which is not claiming knowledge), and suddenly the poster moved the goalposts and introduced "I don´t know" as another option - which is a completely different issue. Actually, it even seems to me that making a statement concerning your beliefs or lack thereof this is an implied concession that you don´t know. Else you wouldn´t have to believe.

(I do understand that you don´t want to miss any opportunity to attack certain scientists, and you are invited to do so whereever it fits - but, sorry, here it´s just besides the point).

I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Ultimately the onus of responsibility must fall to the one making the claim because nobody can prove a negative. I think we all agree on that premise.

I don't believe that the mainstream astronomy community has provided any empirical evidence to support their assertion that inflation exists or that it existed and that it has any physical effect on matter. Ditto for "dark energy" and the observation of "acceleration" in terms of a lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration that "dark energy" had anything to do with it. However, I don't simply "lack belief" in "inflation", "dark energy" and exotic types of "dark matter", I actually believe that these things do not exist. Now I could play coy about it, but the reality is that I simply think that the mainstream "made it up" to fill in the gaps of their otherwise falsified creation mythos.

IMO there is a place where it's hard to remain "completely neutral", to sit right on the razor's edge of really not knowing. We tend to form opinions, one way or the other, and often those opinions are formed by "concepts" that we've been introduced to.

Astronomers make all sorts of 'knowledge' claims about inflation, dark energy and exotic types of matter, but really they amount to nothing more than 'beliefs' in "sky entities" that are now and will forever be entirely impotent on Earth. Even by their theory, inflation is now dead, and cannot ever influence a controlled human experiment. Dark energy is too weak to ever show up anywhere near matter. Talk about "faith" in things one can never hope to demonstrate in a lab! These are 'beliefs', not "knowledge", but humans typically cannot distinguish between them IMO.

 

[quatona]

I guess what I'm getting at is this:

Ultimately the onus of responsibility must fall to the one making the claim because nobody can prove a negative. I think we all agree on that premise.

I don't believe that the mainstream astronomy community has provided any empirical evidence to support their assertion that inflation exists or that it existed and that it has any physical effect on matter. Ditto for "dark energy" and the observation of "acceleration" in terms of a lack of empirical cause/effect demonstration that "dark energy" had anything to do with it. However, I don't simply "lack belief" in "inflation", "dark energy" and exotic types of "dark matter", I actually believe that these things do not exist. Now I could play coy about it, but the reality is that I simply think that the mainstream "made it up" to fill in the gaps of their otherwise falsified creation mythos.

IMO there is a place where it's hard to remain "completely neutral", to sit right on the razor's edge of really not knowing. We tend to form opinions, one way or the other, and often those opinions are formed by "concepts" that we've been introduced to.

Astronomers make all sorts of 'knowledge' claims about inflation, dark energy and exotic types of matter, but really they amount to nothing more than 'beliefs' in "sky entities" that are now and will forever be entirely impotent on Earth. Even by their theory, inflation is now dead, and cannot ever influence a controlled human experiment. Dark energy is too weak to ever show up anywhere near matter. Talk about "faith" in things one can never hope to demonstrate in a lab! These are 'beliefs', not "knowledge", but humans typically cannot distinguish between them IMO.

Michael, you asked me to elaborate on a point I was trying to make. Now you keep trying to have an entirely different discussion with me - i.e. you are not responding to the point and argument but keep harping on one of your pet peeves.

I could simply repost my last post but that would be boring, wouldn´t it?

 

[Michael]

Michael, you asked me to elaborate on a point I was trying to make. Now you keep trying to have an entirely different discussion with me - i.e. you are not responding to the point and argument but keep harping on one of your pet peeves.

I could simply repost my last post but that would be boring, wouldn´t it?

Hmmm. A couple of relevant points got lost in translation IMO. I'm sure it's my fault for being so cryptic at work on Friday, so let me try again.

I only mentioned my "pet peeve" as you (rightfully) call it, because it exemplifies my points about the difference between "belief" and something called "knowledge", and the degrees of "lack of belief".

My emotionally/scientifically (as I see it anyway) driven "peeve" motivates me to "lack belief" in all so call "metaphysical" concepts. I certainly believe that there might be forces of nature we know nothing about, but there's no sense in "assuming" that anything we cannot yet explain should be an excuse to 'stuff the gaps' with "metaphysical entities". I think even you would agree to that premise in the final analysis.

I don't simply "lack belief" in mainstream theory, I actively "believe" that Lambda-dark-magic-stuff theory should be discarded, along with what Alfven called "pseudoscience" in favor of something that actually 'works in a lab", specifically 'electricity', electrical discharges, and electrical processes in plasma.

Now most "lack of believers" would not go 'crusading' against a theory that they simply "lack belief in". Most would not be motivated to "publicly debate" such ideas, let alone actively and aggressively try to "convert others" (evangelical oriented action) to another belief system. In my opinion it takes quite a 'thick skin' and quite a 'motivation' to go out and publicly crusade *against an idea* that one "lacks belief in". Something motivates me to do that. It's not an "easy" thing to do either, it's a lot like being a atheist crusading on a theistic website when one crusades against mainstream scientific theories. It's just "par for the course" to some degree, but the reactions are much the same.

For instance the mainstream can't call me "evil' in their little melodrama, so I'm portrayed as a "crackpot" every single day. It takes quite a thick skin to subject oneself to being called an 'evil spawn of satan'/crackpot/crank/yada,yada,yada every single day. IMO, in some ways atheists here on this website have it quite 'easy'. These boards are typically moderated in favor of 'civil debate', whereas in scientific debates, there's typically almost no such thing a 'fairly moderated' discussion. Personal attacks against the individual are actually "normal" and "encouraged" to some degree. The "crackpot" is always at a deficit in public scientific debates because such derogatory personal attacks are consider "normal/ok" in all such debates. These are "personal attacks" which have nothing to do with empirical physics. The fact such attacks on the individuals go on in a "science" oriented debate, simply demonstrates how "desperately" and emotionally they cling to their "religion". Since they can't show their impotent sky entities have any material effect on matter, they blame me personally for *their* empirical failure, they fail to acknowledge the flaw in the beliefs, they go right back into pure denial.

I only mention all this because I think that it's clear that it takes a 'special' motivation to go "evangelical" in ones 'lack of belief'. There comes a place where that "lack of belief" isn't just a "fence sitting" sort of 'lack of belief', it's an active belief that something does not exist, and an emotionally driven/psychologically driven motivation to "evangelize" against an idea/for some other idea.

The other key point I think that got lost here was the difference between "belief" and what some humans perceive as 'knowledge'. Many folks profess to have "knowledge" about a topic (inflation/God/whatever), that is often nothing more than 'belief'.

 

[quatona]

Hmmm. A couple of relevant points got lost in translation IMO. I'm sure it's my fault for being so cryptic at work on Friday, so let me try again.

I only mentioned my "pet peeve" as you (rightfully) call it, because it exemplifies my points about the difference between "belief" and something called "knowledge", and the degrees of "lack of belief".

My emotionally/scientifically (as I see it anyway) driven "peeve" motivates me to "lack belief" in all so call "metaphysical" concepts. I certainly believe that there might be forces of nature we know nothing about, but there's no sense in "assuming" that anything we cannot yet explain should be an excuse to 'stuff the gaps' with "metaphysical entities". I think even you would agree to that premise in the final analysis.

I don't simply "lack belief" in mainstream theory, I actively "believe" that Lambda-dark-magic-stuff theory should be discarded, along with what Alfven called "pseudoscience" in favor of something that actually 'works in a lab", specifically 'electricity', electrical discharges, and electrical processes in plasma.

Now most "lack of believers" would not go 'crusading' against a theory that they simply "lack belief in". Most would not be motivated to "publicly debate" such ideas, let alone actively and aggressively try to "convert others" (evangelical oriented action) to another belief system. In my opinion it takes quite a 'thick skin' and quite a 'motivation' to go out and publicly crusade *against an idea* that one "lacks belief in". Something motivates me to do that. It's not an "easy" thing to do either, it's a lot like being a atheist crusading on a theistic website when one crusades against mainstream scientific theories. It's just "par for the course" to some degree, but the reactions are much the same.

For instance the mainstream can't call me "evil' in their little melodrama, so I'm portrayed as a "crackpot" every single day. It takes quite a thick skin to subject oneself to being called an 'evil spawn of satan'/crackpot/crank/yada,yada,yada every single day. IMO, in some ways atheists here on this website have it quite 'easy'. These boards are typically moderated in favor of 'civil debate', whereas in scientific debates, there's typically almost no such thing a 'fairly moderated' discussion. Personal attacks against the individual are actually "normal" and "encouraged" to some degree. The "crackpot" is always at a deficit in public scientific debates because such derogatory personal attacks are consider "normal/ok" in all such debates. These are "personal attacks" which have nothing to do with empirical physics. The fact such attacks on the individuals go on in a "science" oriented debate, simply demonstrates how "desperately" and emotionally they cling to their "religion". Since they can't show their impotent sky entities have any material effect on matter, they blame me personally for *their* empirical failure, they fail to acknowledge the flaw in the beliefs, they go right back into pure denial.

I only mention all this because I think that it's clear that it takes a 'special' motivation to go "evangelical" in ones 'lack of belief'. There comes a place where that "lack of belief" isn't just a "fence sitting" sort of 'lack of belief', it's an active belief that something does not exist, and an emotionally driven/psychologically driven motivation to "evangelize" against an idea/for some other idea.

The other key point I think that got lost here was the difference between "belief" and what some humans perceive as 'knowledge'. Many folks profess to have "knowledge" about a topic (inflation/God/whatever), that is often nothing more than 'belief'.

It´s fine you got all that off your chest, Michael, yet it´s still completely besides the point I made in my initial post and in my further explanations thereof. At this point I am still not sure if it got across to you (your responses indicate it hasn´t) but I don´t know how to word it better.
If you want to keep responding to it I suggest you start by telling me what you think I was getting at.

 

[Michael]

It´s fine you got all that off your chest, Michael, yet it´s still completely besides the point I made in my initial post and in my further explanations thereof. At this point I am still not sure if it got across to you (your responses indicate it hasn´t) but I don´t know how to word it better.
If you want to keep responding to it I suggest you start by telling me what you think I was getting at.

What I though you were getting at is the difference between "I don't know", "I believe it's true", and "I believe it's false", only the last two being examples of knowledge statements.

What I'm getting at is that a pure "I don't know" position seldom results in "evangelical" behaviors. It's nothing more than an "idealized" "lack of belief" that seldom if ever applies to any topic involving "evangelical' behaviors (for or against).

 

[quatona]

What I though you were getting at is the difference between "I don't know", "I believe it's true", and "I believe it's false", only the last two being examples of knowledge statements.

Close. It was even simpler: Claims of knowledge and statements of belief are two entirely different categories. Thus "I don´t know" is not the middle ground between "I believe" and "I disbelieve" - as the poster whom I responded to suggested.

 

[Michael]

Close. It was even simpler: Claims of knowledge and statements of belief are two entirely different categories. Thus "I don´t know" is not the middle ground between "I believe" and "I disbelieve" - as the poster whom I responded to suggested.

I guess I still don't understand how and why you think claims of knowledge and statements of belief are "different". I cited a specific scientific example where I see no real (empirical) evidence that they are any different.

 

[mzungu]

I guess I still don't understand how and why you think claims of knowledge and statements of belief are "different". I cited a specific scientific example where I see no real (empirical) evidence that they are any different.

I am the only person who is an expert in the scriptures. No one can contest my knowledge. I know the Bible better than any person on this planet. So if you disagree then you are committing blasphemy in my opinion!