Does God exist?

[bhsmte]

1 is an arbitrary statement with no evidence.

GIGO: garbage in, garbage out

Equally valid statement:

1. If pixies did not exist, the sun would not burn

2. the sun burns

3. therefore, pixies exist.

Sounds like he is a fan of William Lane Craig.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The world of truth is vastly different than the world of fact

Can you explain how?

Science can definitely help people make decisions and gather information that can inform their moral decisions. But that's vastly different than saying that science alone dictates things.

I'm not so sure. How, if not through science, are you going to inform yourself on the consequences of your actions?

Note that I use the word "science" broadly here. In the sense of the principles of the method by which it gathers knowledge. Repeatability, experience/experiment, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sounds like he is a fan of William Lane Craig.

Seriously, I don't get it.

When I found out about how he is like one of the "leading" apologists, I went ahead and looked up some of his "work".

I almost fell of my chair. I get how Dawkins doesn't want to be on the same stage with him. I don't even want to be in the audience. I'ld feel compelled to rip of my arm, just so I could throw something at him.

The fallacious nonsense he spews is unbelievable. He also shamelessly defends the mass murder of women and children... and then dares to say that atheists don't have a moral foundation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What do YOU think about plastic flowers?

That they as never as worthwhile as the real thing, what's your point?

 

[bhsmte]

Seriously, I don't get it.

When I found out about how he is like one of the "leading" apologists, I went ahead and looked up some of his "work".

I almost fell of my chair. I get how Dawkins doesn't want to be on the same stage with him. I don't even want to be in the audience. I'ld feel compelled to rip of my arm, just so I could throw something at him.

The fallacious nonsense he spews is unbelievable. He also shamelessly defends the mass murder of women and children... and then dares to say that atheists don't have a moral foundation.

Yep, he is a piece of work, all in the name of God.

Sam Harris absolutely handed him his rear end and Bart Ehrman did well against him as well. Craig is the king of; misrepresenting the other person's position, so they have to burn up debate time correcting the lies that Craig told.

 

[Received]

Can you explain how?

Imagine two circles. Truth is much larger and contains fact, which stands for truth that is empirically verifiable. This is so because there are more things that are true that aren't empirically verifiable, and can't even be empirically verified. Such as the presuppositions of science.

I'm not so sure. How, if not through science, are you going to inform yourself on the consequences of your actions?

Note that I use the word "science" broadly here. In the sense of the principles of the method by which it gathers knowledge. Repeatability, experience/experiment, etc.

Well, if it's too broad it doesn't really become science, just separate philosophical principles that can stand on their own. Science has to be all the above added together.

But you inform yourself other than through science by using reasoning, experience without induction, experience without replication, intuition, etc.

 

[Received]

That they as never as worthwhile as the real thing, what's your point?

That your question doesn't really have connection with our subject, IMO.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That your question doesn't really have connection with our subject, IMO.

Except it was on subject with your comment "the truth is everything, therefore it is nothing", which btw is just a nonsense statement by itself.

 

[Received]

Except it was on subject with your comment "the truth is everything, therefore it is nothing", which btw is just a nonsense statement by itself.

No, not truth, fact. And what it means is this: if facts are everything, then because they're everything they can't be distinguished from non-facts, which makes them nothing. Point: facts have to be distinguishable from non-facts. The reasoning I was pointing out before me basically makes everything potentially a fact, and it isn't, given the reasoning above and lack of empirical validation inherent to facts and not possibly applicable to all things that are.

 

[quatona]

Seriously, I don't get it.

When I found out about how he is like one of the "leading" apologists, I went ahead and looked up some of his "work".

I almost fell of my chair. I get how Dawkins doesn't want to be on the same stage with him. I don't even want to be in the audience. I'ld feel compelled to rip of my arm, just so I could throw something at him.

The fallacious nonsense he spews is unbelievable. He also shamelessly defends the mass murder of women and children... and then dares to say that atheists don't have a moral foundation.

Isn´t that exactly when it becomes convenient to appeal to a deity that allegedly sides with you: if you want to establish a "morality" that otherwise nobody would accept?

 

[Received]

Isn´t that exactly when it becomes convenient to appeal to a deity that allegedly sides with you: if you want to establish a "morality" that otherwise nobody would accept?

A morality that interestingly seems pretty much exactly with how you're already living your life...

 

[quatona]

A morality that interestingly seems pretty much exactly with how you're already living your life...

WLC´s morality?? You must be joking.

Apart from that, that was exactly my point: For establishing a morality that makes sense to people you don´t need to appeal to a deity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, not truth, fact. And what it means is this: if facts are everything, then because they're everything they can't be distinguished from non-facts, which makes them nothing. Point: facts have to be distinguishable from non-facts. The reasoning I was pointing out before me basically makes everything potentially a fact, and it isn't, given the reasoning above and lack of empirical validation inherent to facts and not possibly applicable to all things that are.

When someone states the facts are everything, they mean they are what the world is. This doesn't mean that non-facts are excluded from being thought up, only that they have no actual existence beyond ideas. Twisting sentences to be deeper than they are is pointless, for this reason. You know it is supposed to mean it is the facts which are important, but instead you do this.

 

[Received]

WLC´s morality?? You must be joking.

Apart from that, that was exactly my point: For establishing a morality that makes sense to people you don´t need to appeal to a deity.

Actually, I would say that appealing to a deity that seems to support exactly how you're living your life is the perfect example of creating god in your image.

 

[Received]

When someone states the facts are everything, they mean they are what the world is.

Then they're not using "fact" as a word with any relevant content, given that it just means everything that is. That's a definition for truth or reality (depending on your semantic quibbles), BTW. So which is it?

This doesn't mean that non-facts are excluded from being thought up, only that they have no actual existence beyond ideas. Twisting sentences to be deeper than they are is pointless, for this reason. You know it is supposed to mean it is the facts which are important, but instead you do this.

No twistin'. Just trying to make words as they're used, in this case fact and truth, relevant by distinguishing their meanings.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I would say that appealing to a deity that seems to support exactly how you're living your life is the perfect example of creating god in your image.

precisely why there are so many different interpretations of scripture and so many denominations of Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

Furthermore, intelligence is the product of organized matter.

Huh? A computer is organized matter but it's not the least bit intelligent in the sense i'm talking about.

Scientists don't understand how consciousness relates to the brain. Some philosophers doubt they ever will.

 

[Received]

precisely why there are so many different interpretations of scripture and so many denominations of Christianity.

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that's the only variable. Sometimes people just honestly disagree on a text's meaning. Other differences in denominations have to do with values (like helping the poor through giving money or helping them through sweating it out).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then they're not using "fact" as a word with any relevant content, given that it just means everything that is. That's a definition for truth or reality (depending on your semantic quibbles), BTW. So which is it?



No twistin'. Just trying to make words as they're used, in this case fact and truth, relevant by distinguishing their meanings.

Except it isn't all that relevant unless you overthink every word in every sentence.

 

[Received]

Except it isn't all that relevant unless you overthink every word in every sentence.

I'm not overthinking by simply pointing out that one word has to mean something that's different than another word or else there's no point in using two different words.