Faith and Atheism

[Davian]

That's not what Pascal said. You misquote him Davian.

I was paraphrasing, not quoting.

And no it isn't supposed to be convincing to you.

Apologetics tend only to work on those that already believe. So why post that?

Your mind is already made up it seems.

It is, but I am always open to information that will falsify the ideas that I hold.

Logical fallacies are not going to do it.

Now, back to the topic.... I believe every person has eternity set in their heart and so there is within every person, a yearning for the supernatural.

Do you speak for everyone? Even if everyone had this 'yearning', it would count as common evolutionary heritage before being evidence for the 'supernatural'.

 

[brightlights]

Are you getting all of this, brightlights? Is this stuff supposed to be convincing?

I like Pascal but I understand why you're not convinced. Convincing surely doesn't happen through argument, but argument can serve the purpose of planting a seed of thought that might later disrupt a worldview. Convincing takes place in vulnerable conversation, loving relationship, and experimentation. These things don't usually come into being between believers and non-believers unless one party feels dissatisfied with their current state of being.

 

[Hawisher]

That would 'yes', apparently.

So from special pleading ("God" is different from everything else we discover about the world around us, using science), we move to circular logic (God can only been seen to exist by those that believe he exists).

Are you getting all of this, brightlights? Is this stuff supposed to be convincing?

Far be it from me to support anything E says, but I must interject this. For God to be the essential cause of the universe, he must be separate from the universe in the sense that the laws of the universe do not apply to him. It's not "special pleading" to say "the thing that Science cannot explain cannot be explained by science."

 

[Elioenai26]

It is, but I am always open to information that will falsify the ideas that I hold.

I have already demonstrated to you why Ignisticism is self-defeating and internally incoherent and therefore I have falsified it. Yet you still maintain you are Ignostic. So I am not convinced that what you have said about being open is true.

Do you speak for everyone? Even if everyone had this 'yearning', it would count as common evolutionary heritage before being evidence for the 'supernatural'.

Yes I speak for everyone. How it comes about is immaterial to my point.

 

[Davian]

Is this "God" of any significance?

Of course!

I might as well ask if quarks have any significance...I've never seen any, or how they work in the universe.

Far be it from me to support anything E says, but I must interject this. For God to be the essential cause of the universe, he must be separate from the universe in the sense that the laws of the universe do not apply to him. It's not "special pleading" to say "the thing that Science cannot explain cannot be explained by science."

Quarks have significance, in that they can be the subjects of experiments, and have explanatory power in how the universe works.

I have seen theists here define their deity in such vacuous terms that it could not be falsified. Their god was of no significance.

If all you are claiming is that your god is just an "essential cause of the universe", then it is not special pleading. As an unfalsifiable claim, it is no scientific significance.

If I am not wrong, Elio's "God" is supposed to be more than that.

 

[yasic]

I was promised that if I agreed that you will share the purpose of this contention. Could you please fullfill this sharing, or if you already have and I missed it could you please direct me to the post where you shared it?

 

[Hawisher]

Quarks have significance, in that they can be the subjects of experiments, and have explanatory power in how the universe works.

I have seen theists here define their deity in such vacuous terms that it could not be falsified. Their god was of no significance.

If all you are claiming is that your god is just an "essential cause of the universe", then it is not special pleading. As an unfalsifiable claim, it is no scientific significance.

If I am not wrong, Elio's "God" is supposed to be more than that.

Let me put it this way. If you establish that Harry Potter is magic, then it is not special pleading to say that he can teleport even though other things can't teleport.

 

[Davian]

I have already demonstrated to you why Ignisticism is self-defeating and internally incoherent and therefore I have falsified it. Yet you still maintain you are Ignostic. So I am not convinced that what you have said about being open is true.

Seeing that you conflate logical positivism with the concept of falsification, as well as atheism with nihilism, I cannot be sure what you are convinced of.

Ignosticism is not a knowledge claim, so you cannot "falsify" it. But then, you think Atheism is a knowledge claim.

Yes I speak for everyone. How it comes about is immaterial to my point.

Have you spoken with everyone?

 

[Davian]

Let me put it this way. If you establish that Harry Potter is magic, then it is not special pleading to say that he can teleport even though other things can't teleport.

You would need to define 'teleport' in this instance. Do the cells in his body teleport? Is he using an external device that could be used on other things? Is he folding space and stepping through, or creating a remote replica, and destroying the original in the process, as in Star Trek?

 

[Elioenai26]

Have you spoken with everyone?

No.

 

[Hawisher]

You would need to define 'teleport' in this instance. Do the cells in his body teleport? Is he using an external device that could be used on other things? Is he folding space and stepping through, or creating a remote replica, and destroying the original in the process, as in Star Trek?

-.-; I really have no idea at all. Actually, wait! I think he may be folding space and stepping through... possibly. Have you read the books?

 

[Davian]

I like Pascal but I understand why you're not convinced. Convincing surely doesn't happen through argument, but argument can serve the purpose of planting a seed of thought that might later disrupt a worldview. Convincing takes place in vulnerable conversation, loving relationship, and experimentation. These things don't usually come into being between believers and non-believers unless one party feels dissatisfied with their current state of being.

It's your inclusion of the word "vulnerable" that sets a red flag for me, with the association with the word "prey".

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." -- NMS

 

[brightlights]

It's your inclusion of the word "vulnerable" that sets a red flag for me, with the association with the word "prey".

Vulnerability is a good thing within the context of a loving relationship. You can't have friendship without vulnerability.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." -- NMS

I'm sorry I don't understand the significance of the quote.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's your inclusion of the word "vulnerable" that sets a red flag for me, with the association with the word "prey".

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god *isn't* detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." -- NMS

I have quotes from scientists who claim that their discoveries in astrophysics, and cosmology would best be attributed to God's acts in creating the universe. This evidence is right in line with what NMS said in the first sentence of the quote you provided regarding the measuring and detecting of God's presence in some way.

 

[Davian]

-.-; I really have no idea at all. Actually, wait! I think he may be folding space and stepping through... possibly. Have you read the books?

I have only watched the first movie. I did look here:

Teleportation in fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would seem that a device is always involved, the wizard's magic wand or something else. The ability to teleport is not a property of the human body, in this case. It looks like a folding space type of teleportation - much preferable over the Star Trek version (it kills you, and builds a new copy of you at the other end. Ouch.).

 

[Hawisher]

I have only watched the first movie. I did look here:

Teleportation in fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would seem that a device is always involved, the wizard's magic wand or something else. The ability to teleport is not a property of the human body, in this case. It looks like a folding space type of teleportation - much preferable over the Star Trek version (it kills you, and builds a new copy of you at the other end. Ouch.).

Actually, Dumbledore in particular is perfectly capable of wandless magic. Others are as well, albeit accidentally.

 

[madaz]

What is the contention of this thread?

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Forgive me for just responding to this little bit. I did read your entire post and I appreciate it.

Grateful to whom? Isn't this a tendency toward faith? Don't you want to say "thank you" to someone, even if you know that belief in God is unfounded?

To whom? Maybe its more to what.

Forgive me for just responding to this little bit. I did read your entire post and I appreciate it.

Grateful to whom? Isn't this a tendency toward faith? Don't you want to say "thank you" to someone, even if you know that belief in God is unfounded?

Yes I want to say thank you but I doubt the apelike deity as depicted in the bible is the deity that deserves the credit. I would expect a deity to be more sophisticated than that. So Im grateful to whatever more than whoever.
But I really do appreciate beating the odds and being priveledged enough to share this wonderful journey called life. This is my heaven.

 

[Davian]

I have quotes from scientists who claim that their discoveries in astrophysics, and cosmology would best be attributed to God's acts in creating the universe. This evidence is right in line with what NMS said in the first sentence of the quote you provided regarding the measuring and detecting of God's presence in some way.

The NMS quote is not in reference to the 'first cause'. Got anything that is not unfalsifiable?

 

[Elioenai26]

The NMS quote is not in reference to the 'first cause'. Got anything that is not unfalsifiable?

Hmm, I am going to refrain from following this up. I do not want to get too much off topic. I do know why you are asking what you are though, I get your point.