intellgence....you either have it or you don't

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

Creating a straw man of another's statement is faulting thinking.

I make no such assumptions. I have reached tentative conclusions based on observations that this claimed knowledge, or even the potential to have such knowledge has yet to be demonstrated.


Who is this "us", Kimosabe?

Well, it is a religion, after all.

Sweet.......well, at least you're honest in being 'tentative' about it.

There's hope for you yet.

 

[Davian]

Davian



Sweet.......well, at least you're honest in being 'tentative' about it.

That would be the intellectually honest position to take. My beliefs change with the introduction of new evidence.

There's hope for you yet.

I note that you did not come back with anything that might demonstrate this "potential" for knowledge that you alluded to in post #18.

 

[variant]

...unless the 'beyond' has put it into my grasp.

No, you either can or can't explain an event, the unexplained isn't grasped.

God isn't an explanation because it can explain any event (even completely contradictory sets of data), and thus explains nothing.

If God can do anything, no one grasps, understands or explains God, whether it exists or does not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The original OP was more of a vent, fueled off feelings. It definitely came off as immature, but I had to get it off my chest. I still think it had truth in it, pertaining to myself, it just came out in a harsh way. To really discuss these issues you need to have a solid background in science, philosophy, and mathematics. I have a basic understanding of all, maybe besides math (I shied away from calculus when in college).

There are plenty of people here who understand these difficult concepts, so I can't go speaking on anyone's behalf besides myself; this has to do with my own incompetence.

I just find it odd with the lack of questions that are can be answered, and the leaps and bounds that need to gone through to establish the most miniscule amount of truth.

I think it may be time to give up on these questions of origins I have. Once you think you have some kind of answer, you read something else, and have to start right back over. It's really not worth thinking about, it's just an endless cycle of frustration lol.

In the meanwhile people think they have the answers, and belittle each other because they have different opinions/beliefs. I don't know what I have found so enjoyable in this

Welcome to the world of research, where you feel stupid all the time:

The importance of stupidity in scientific research

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The video posted on the OP of this thread is a mass of bias masquerading as sound argumentation.

First off, the argument of a finely tuned universe was put into place before amassing discovery showed something different.
It is an old argument, it's simply been rehashed by some who simply haven't stayed updated.

The main thing that remains steady is in fact intelligent design. It poses a monumental issue for science because it's close to being a century since Einstein's relativity and there was been a fantastical failure in all sectors of physics to conquer ID.
Basically all the guy in the video says about this- because he has nothing to go on, is ridiculing the idea that God made a great big universe of noise and gas where He could have done something else- like things I suppose he'd do if he were God

An extraordinary abrupt dead end is not simpy something that happens in science, and a good deal of phycisists have outright feared an end to physics because an answer is just_ not_ there_

There have been so many countless things proposed by scientists for many decades about the origins of the universe that it's frankly amusing to see atheists go and try to dismiss religion based on the claims of certain apologists.

This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. If we cannot produce a satisfying answer then we cannot produce a satisfying answer, and we remain ignorant. Goddidit does not win by default.

 

[WindStaff]

This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. If we cannot produce a satisfying answer then we cannot produce a satisfying answer, and we remain ignorant. Goddidit does not win by default.

It is an argument from the fact that the Scriptures have been around for thousands of years, modern science has failed to answer what they answer, and yet you have people nonetheless telling us to prove it.

Nothingdidit is not an answer, and science ultimately is built on the presupposition that the universe is not guided by a divine force. The very fact that theories like evolution is proof of this, there was never a time in which modern science considered anything else, and indeed moves away from God even when science straight up fails.
There is no reason why science hasn't figured out the origin of our existence other then that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is an argument from the fact that the Scriptures have been around for thousands of years, modern science has failed to answer what they answer, and yet you have people nonetheless telling us to prove it.

Nothingdidit is not an answer, and science ultimately is built on the presupposition that the universe is not guided by a divine force. The very fact that theories like evolution is proof of this, there was never a time in which modern science considered anything else, and indeed moves away from God even when science straight up fails.
There is no reason why science hasn't figured out the origin of our existence other then that.

Again, this is just an argument from ignorance: "Science hasn't produced a satisfying answer yet, so Goddidit." It's the same as Bill O'Reilly's facepalm-inducing "Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that." I'm sorry, but you don't win by default.

 

[WindStaff]

Again, this is just an argument from ignorance: "Science hasn't produced a satisfying answer yet, so Goddidit." It's the same as Bill O'Reilly's facepalm-inducing "Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that." I'm sorry, but you don't win by default.

Science isn't going to have a satisfying answer, because it has already been demonstrated that you can't find it by looking up at the universe.

For nearly a century, physicists have obsessed at it and there is nothing to show. Science says there should be over 70 civilizations in the Milky Way alone, and yet when we have nothing to show for what is an alleged mathematical certainty, lo and behold, just authenticate a scientific paradox instead of acknoweldging that there is a gigantic error in it altogether. ~whatever upholds evolution~

And that's just lame. Science puts up it's facades and you all just take it for granted.

 

[variant]

There is no reason why science hasn't figured out the origin of our existence other then that.

That is a pure argument from ignorance and thus a straight up logical fallacy.

Again God is not an explanation because it can explain any set of events. It doesn't expand our knowledge of the beginnings of the universe so It doesn't even need to be dismissed.

Ignorance about any given set of facts does not mean God is more (or less) likely.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science isn't going to have a satisfying answer, because it has already been demonstrated that you can't find it by looking up at the universe.

For nearly a century, physicists have obsessed at it and there is nothing to show.

Not having a satisfying answer leaves us at square one, which is ignorance, not Goddidit. An argument from ignorance is a fallacy.

How will trading the language of physics for the language of theology lead to improvements in our understanding of cosmogony?

Science says there should be over 70 civilizations in the Milky Way alone, and yet when we have nothing to show for what is an alleged mathematical certainty, lo and behold, just authenticate a scientific paradox instead of acknoweldging that there is a gigantic error in it altogether. ~whatever upholds evolution~

And that's just lame. Science puts up it's facades and you all just take it for granted.

You seem to be going on a tirade against science. There are things we do not know. Not knowing does not automatically lend credence to Goddidit.

 

[NannaNae]

it has been done over and over and they still are reeling, well until their next set of lies graces their universe and our present .



these windy morons are just like the Pharisee, Jesus grew limb on limb , eye on eyeball.. but they still didn't believe. BECAUSE THEY DON"T WANT TO.

I stopped listening to his droning narcissistic rant like charlie browns teacher wawahawahahwahaa . that meant nothing except that his preist were the only ones who could find truth.. he long winded fool.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

That would be the intellectually honest position to take. My beliefs change with the introduction of new evidence.

That's good to hear. But, the problem is that if we are dealing with a God who "gives to those who already have," and also, "takes away from those who do not have," then it sounds like we have a situation in which human beings who seek to maintain evidential type expectations will be purposely frustrated.

I note that you did not come back with anything that might demonstrate this "potential" for knowledge that you alluded to in post #18.

Since the flow of my thought, which in this case began with my comment to Variant in post #13, was contingent, there is no allusion directly applicable for us to ponder or for me to support.

Of course, that doesn't mean you and I can't begin our own discussion in a separate thread or through a PM.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

variant

No, you either can or can't explain an event, the unexplained isn't grasped.

So, for you, all explanations are dichotomous in nature? They either explain FULLY an event, or NOT AT ALL? Am I understanding you clearly here, or am I misunderstanding you here?

God isn't an explanation because it can explain any event (even completely contradictory sets of data), and thus explains nothing.

"God" is not an explanation. "God" is a word, one which does not explain any and every event.

If God can do anything, no one grasps, understands or explains God, whether it exists or does not.

I don't believe "God" can do anything. In fact, I'm not sure what 'anything' would look like. In fact, I can't say that I've ever experienced 'anything' myself.

 

[Davian]

Does the

button not work for you?

Davian

That's good to hear. But, the problem is that if we are dealing with a God who "gives to those who already have," and also, "takes away from those who do not have," then it sounds like we have a situation in which human beings who seek to maintain evidential type expectations will be purposely frustrated.

Or, if we are dealing with a god that is, by every objective measure to date, is simply a character in a book, we will have believers continually unable to substantiate the existence of deities outside the confines of a book.

Which is what we observe here in these forums, and real life.

I feel no frustration, as I have never believed in gods, and have no need for them. I come here to explore why people believe in such things, and show my teenage children this vast, intricate rational that some develop to excuse why this thing that they believe in is indistinguishable from nothing.

Since the flow of my thought, which in this case began with my comment to Variant in post #13, was contingent, there is no allusion directly applicable for us to ponder or for me to support.

Of course, that doesn't mean you and I can't begin our own discussion in a separate thread or through a PM.

I don't see what we need to discuss. If you have something of significance, post it here already.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Davian

Does the

button not work for you?

Actually, the

button works fine for me, thank you.

 

[variant]

variant

So, for you, all explanations are dichotomous in nature? They either explain FULLY an event, or NOT AT ALL? Am I understanding you clearly here, or am I misunderstanding you here?

Yes you are misunderstanding, they either explain as in add to our knowledge about the event, or they do not.

"God" is not an explanation. "God" is a word, one which does not explain any and every event.

The presence or absence of a God can not explain any event because it explains any possible event.

God has any powers the person proposing a God wishes God to have, so no facts could contradict God, thus, no facts can be explained by God as all facts can be.

I don't believe "God" can do anything. In fact, I'm not sure what 'anything' would look like. In fact, I can't say that I've ever experienced 'anything' myself.

Well the idea that God can do anything comes from the Christian not the Atheist. It is a logical proposition.

If you think it is untrue:

To show the proposition false you have to present a set of facts we could experience that you don't think God could be an explanation for.

 

[Davian]

Davian

Actually, the

button works fine for me, thank you.

Why don't you use it?

Nothing of significance, then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Variant

Yes you are misunderstanding, they either explain as in add to our knowledge about the event, or they do not.

[FONT=&quot]Ok. Thank you for your clarification on what you mean by the term ‘explanation.’ However, to simply say that an explanation ‘adds’ to our existing knowledge is neither to say anything that specifically qualifies the nature of an event, nor to identify its possible causation. So, I’m not so clear on whether you are invoking Hempel’s “Covering Law Model,” or instead a “Causative Model,” or some other model of explanation, here.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

The presence or absence of a God can not explain any event because it explains any possible event

.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Actually, while I agree with you that people have attempted to use the idea of God as one that explains “any event,” I think they are mistaken in taking that approach or in maintaining that they can identify when a God has or has not had a hand in an event. I don’t think human beings can identify a God’s relation to causation unless the ‘God’ itself specifically demarcates, at minimum, His presence and purpose in an event. Since our experiences with ‘God’ don’t provide this (except perhaps on very, very rare occasions), scientists can proceed with the assumptions of “methodological materialism.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

God has any powers the person proposing a God wishes God to have, so no facts could contradict God, thus, no facts can be explained by God as all facts can be.

Not quite. Some people may attempt to build, and claim, a comprehensive idea of God and His omnipotence, but the attempt, and the resulting philosophical considerations by no means succeed if done from only a human level; revelation from a God would be required to substantiate even a minimal amount of clarity in our ideas of the divine, let alone a maximal amount.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Well the idea that God can do anything comes from the Christian not the Atheist. It is a logical proposition.

[/FONT]Not all Christians define God and the nature of His omnipotence in such a way. So, sure, such ideas about God and His omnipotence may be articulated and elicited by Christians, some of which may even be claimed as overtly logical, but we also have to consider more than the source in this case since Christiandom itself is neither monolithic, nor homogenous. To say that God is omnipotent is merely a proposition, and it is not necessarily a logical one that can be simply deduced on a human level and then subjected to confirmation or denial by successive human considerations.


[FONT=&quot]

If you think it is untrue:

To show the proposition false you have to present a set of facts we could experience that you don't think God could be an explanation for.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Actually, to show the proposition as false, I could also biblically contest the integrity of the definitional parameters asserted by ‘other’ Christians as they define God, and if successful, I could open another cognitive space in which God and His nature could be alternatively considered. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[variant]

Variant
[FONT=&quot]Ok. Thank you for your clarification on what you mean by the term ‘explanation.’ However, to simply say that an explanation ‘adds’ to our existing knowledge is neither to say anything that specifically qualifies the nature of an event, nor to identify its possible causation. So, I’m not so clear on whether you are invoking Hempel’s “Covering Law Model,” or instead a “Causative Model,” or some other model of explanation, here.

Does saying "God did it" identify anything about how the universe came into being? Does it allow us to make any predictions that would show "God did it" to be correct?

Does it expand our knowledge on the event at all? Does it make any predictions about how the universe may be different from one where a God did not cause it?

If not it is not an "explanation".

Actually, while I agree with you that people have attempted to use the idea of God as one that explains “any event,” I think they are mistaken in taking that approach or in maintaining that they can identify when a God has or has not had a hand in an event. I don’t think human beings can identify a God’s relation to causation unless the ‘God’ itself specifically demarcates, at minimum, His presence and purpose in an event. Since our experiences with ‘God’ don’t provide this (except perhaps on very, very rare occasions), scientists can proceed with the assumptions of “methodological materialism.”

The reasoning is simple that we can not differentiate God from not God, therefore God doesn't mean anything as it is undefined.

Even basic observation requires that we differentiate proposition A from ~A to define it so, far from being able to explain events, Gods can not even be observed.

Not quite. Some people may attempt to build, and claim, a comprehensive idea of God and His omnipotence, but the attempt, and the resulting philosophical considerations by no means succeed if done from only a human level; revelation from a God would be required to substantiate even a minimal amount of clarity in our ideas of the divine, let alone a maximal amount.

We're not talking about comprehensive (that is a little advanced from where theology actually is) we're talking about basic levels of definition.

First you have to give me examples of observations of things that could not be explained by the actions of an omnipotent being.

If you wish God to explain facts you have to have an idea of facts that God would not explain.

Otherwise you don't have the basics of an "idea" of God that you can use to explain things, you just have a placeholder in your vocabulary for "things I don't understand".

Not all Christians define God and the nature of His omnipotence in such a way. So, sure, such ideas about God and His omnipotence may be articulated and elicited by Christians, some of which may even be claimed as overtly logical, but we also have to consider more than the source in this case since Christiandom itself is neither monolithic, nor homogenous. To say that God is omnipotent is merely a proposition, and it is not necessarily a logical one that can be simply deduced on a human level and then subjected to confirmation or denial by successive human considerations.

I don't care what you call it, I am using omnipotence because that is how it is usually described.

Tell me some facts that you could observe that can not be attributed to the presence of the God you worship and I'll let you off the hook.

Actually, to show the proposition as false, I could also biblically contest the integrity of the definitional parameters asserted by ‘other’ Christians as they define God, and if successful, I could open another cognitive space in which God and His nature could be alternatively considered.

No, if you don't show facts that can not be explained by God, God ceases to be an explanation.

Differences in how you feel you've defined God are not important at all if God is at it's core indefinite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does saying "God did it" identify anything about how the universe came into being? Does it allow us to make any predictions that would show "God did it" to be correct?

Does it expand our knowledge on the event at all? Does it make any predictions about how the universe may be different from one where a God did not cause it?

If not it is not an "explanation".



The reasoning is simple that we can not differentiate God from not God, therefore God doesn't mean anything as it is undefined.

Even basic observation requires that we differentiate proposition A from ~A to define it so, far from being able to explain events, Gods can not even be observed.



We're not talking about comprehensive (that is a little advanced from where theology actually is) we're talking about basic levels of definition.

First you have to give me examples of observations of things that could not be explained by the actions of an omnipotent being.

If you wish God to explain facts you have to have an idea of facts that God would not explain.

Otherwise you don't have the basics of an "idea" of God that you can use to explain things, you just have a placeholder in your vocabulary for "things I don't understand".



I don't care what you call it, I am using omnipotence because that is how it is usually described.

Tell me some facts that you could observe that can not be attributed to the presence of the God you worship and I'll let you off the hook.



No, if you don't show facts that can not be explained by God, God ceases to be an explanation.

Differences in how you feel you've defined God are not important at all if God is at it's core indefinite.

I'm not sure you understand what I've stated. I'm not attempting to establish the idea of 'God' as a demonstrably causative agent...my theology isn't constructed of that orientation. Let me guess...you're one of those who thinks philosophy of science is superfluous to the actual theory and practice of hard science (via Quine). If so, then I guess we'll be speaking past in other, and in circles, so there's little need for us to continue if that kind of disconnect is all that can be expected.

Evidence not explained by God: the Geologic Column...how's that?