The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

Nope.

For example, germs causing deseases is not accepted simply because people claim it.

It's accepted because the "cause/effect" relationship can be established empirically. That's not always even *possible*. In the case I mentioned, it's not possible.

Indeed they are. That's why we test our ideas.
How do you test god beliefs?

I started a couple of threads on the topic.
An Empirical Theory Of God

Yet a GREAT deal of people claim that that is exactly what happened to them.

"Great" as in billions, or "great" as in millions, or something less than that?

And unlike all those ancient folks you were refering to who made claims about divine visitations, these alien abductees are still alive.

Er, so are all living theists.

You can actually go and talk to them. You don't have to relly on texts which are copies of copies of translations of copies, after those stories were past on for generations true oral traditions.

Do you think I'd find their personal testimonies any more "enlightening" than a written account of their experience?

Likewise, I don't see a lot of new gods pop up after "the space age".

Scientology?

I'm sure you are aware that humans believed to see gods everywhere. In thunder, in lightning, in sunset, in moonlight, in sea storms,... In just about anything that they couldn't explain.

So what? "Scientists" used to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe at one time too. I don't discount "science" simply because of *past mistakes*. Why would I do that to religion?

As Neil deGrass put it once: "gods seem like an ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Neil's got his own credibility problems with his ever shrinking gaps for his mythical exotic matter to hide in. Billions spent to shrink the gaps.....nothing changed.

Which god again?

Monotheism has been the "consensus" for some time now, so the concept of "which god" is just silly IMO. It's like asking which "Trump" is the real Trump just because people have different opinions about him.

As you probably know, there are a LOT of them. Most of which are mutually exclusive.

I don't see any two monotheistic religions as being "mutually exclusive" even if some of the less important dogma might be.

And you're pretending that they are the same thing (by lumping all gods / religions in one and the same basket). While, off course, ignoring all the psychology around it.

Huh? How have I ignored any psychology? Did you even mention psychology until now?

There is. It's just not what you're claiming it to be.

How can you *know* that?

I already gave you a few. There's not much more to say about that, really.

Your argument amounts to 'humans can't be trusted'. That's not a legitimate argument. It's a bit like claiming that babies demonstrate the existence of God. The fact that humans are prone to error is irrelevant since that are often *right* too.

It's not exactly new information that humans falsely interpret things in nature and (mistakenly) attribute it to things "bigger then themselves", which can't even be shown to be real.

You do realize that if Panentheism turns out to be true, it would actually tend to validate a lot of what you're writing off as being wrong about human assumptions of the past?

Sure.

Except off course, when the proposed causes can actually be verified and tested.

Except the cause/effect claim cannot always be tested and verified in controlled experimentation.

(cue cosmo rant in 3...2...1...)

I'll spare you this time.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

MOD HAT ON
* * * *
Its easy to get passionate about such a hot topic, but things are getting a bit too heated. If you feel yourself getting frustrated, please walk away from the computer and come back when you feel you can post more calmly.

Please try to keep your posts focused on the topic of discussion, and avoid making personal negative remarks.

Flaming - Flaming and Goading

● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.

* * * *
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Radrook]

Big Bang theory makes testable predictions.

Testability isn't restricted to the narrow concept which you imagine it to be.

 

[Radrook]

Yet, over the past few weeks, you made post after post after post, rehashing / repeating the same old cdesign proponentsist nonsense over and over again, about flagellums, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and all that other mumbo-jumbo.

Which like literally, flies in the face of what you are now claiming here...

Doesn't contradict it at all.

 

[Radrook]

Yet, over the past few weeks, you made post after post after post, rehashing / repeating the same old cdesign proponentsist nonsense over and over again, about flagellums, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and all that other mumbo-jumbo.

Which like literally, flies in the face of what you are now claiming here...

Doesn't contradict it at all.

 

[Radrook]

What evidence?

That's like a female Hippo sitting on your lap and you saying: ""What Hippo?""

 

[Ana the Ist]

That question was in fact the question that I wanted you to ask yourself.

The fact that something isn't *directly* detectable doesn't mean that it's *effects* cannot be directly detectable.

I don't actually hold belief in "dark" stuff myself, but "scientists" seem to do so, even *without* any ability to directly detect it.

Even if God wasn't directly detectable, it wouldn't preclude the *effects* of God from being detectable.

I think maybe you missed my reply, so here it is again....

"That's a fair point...

You understand the problems it causes though, right? Without any sort of confirmation that a god exists...how would you know what it's effects are?

Of course, maybe you've already got an answer for that problem and you can provide an example of an "effect" of god and how you can know it's an effect of god?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's like a female Hippo sitting on your lap and you saying: ""What Hippo?""

Actually, it's more like you claiming that that is what I would say if you were to place such hippo on my lap.

But never actually doing it...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't contradict it at all.

Except that it does.

If you say that the flagellum "could not have evolved" while arguing for a god (err designer), then you are kind of implying that this entity came down and "did something special".

Which indeed DOES fly in the face of the following:

I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things

So that would include evolution by natural selection - which is what you were refering to.
But by rambling about "irreducible complexity" and the "flagellum", you are literally doing exactly that: arguing against "whatever methods" this designer might be using.

So indeed.... some consistency would be nice.

As it stands, I actually have little to no clue what your position on all this actually is. You swing back and forward, are incredibly vague, and refuse to share specifics about this "mysterious evidence" that you claim to have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Testability isn't restricted to the narrow concept which you imagine it to be.

Testability is testability.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

If this, then that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

fits all the necessary prerequisites fot the miraculous

Funny how it's only miraculous when they say it's miraculous. The Big Bang which meets all the prerequisites for the miraculous isn't even called miraculous. Instead the words "unimaginable" "spectacular" "mind boggling" are cunningly preferred in order to avoid giving the "wrong" impression.

Maybe you already did it in this thread...But it might help if you defined "miracle" for the purposes of this discussion.

Some people describe everyday occurrences as miracles...

"My wife gave birth to a healthy baby boy! It's a miracle!"

Some people describe unlikely or improbable events as miracles.....

"I rolled my truck five times on the highway and walked away without a scratch....it's a miracle."

Then there's those, like myself, who believe it should only refer to the impossible....

"Jim can fly through the air just by flapping his arms like wings....it's a miracle."

So what exactly do you mean?

 

[bhsmte]

Testability isn't restricted to the narrow concept which you imagine it to be.

Why don't you explain this comment.

 

[bhsmte]

That's like a female Hippo sitting on your lap and you saying: ""What Hippo?""

What Hippo?

 

[Michael]

I think maybe you missed my reply, so here it is again....

Thanks. Apparently I did miss it. Sorry about that.

You understand the problems it causes though, right? Without any sort of confirmation that a god exists...how would you know what it's effects are?

Well, logically all "investigations" would have to begin by starting with the accounts themselves, and the "effects" described over time. I'd "assume" that there would be some similarities in terms of the "effects" described by the people themselves.

How do we decide what affects M-theory or dark matter/energy might have on anything? Pretty much any hypothetical entity/claim will begin with some observed effect. It's those observed effects that ultimately define the "list of requirements", even if we cannot empirical verify the cause/effect relationship in a lab.

Of course, maybe you've already got an answer for that problem and you can provide an example of an "effect" of god and how you can know it's an effect of god?"

I personally tend to experience a lot of "love", "peace" and "joy" during meditation. I tend to feel more unified with everything and everyone, and the clarity of mind often results in inspirational insights. I would assume that others would have similar types of experiences.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe you already did it in this thread...But it might help if you defined "miracle" for the purposes of this discussion.

Some people describe everyday occurrences as miracles...

"My wife gave birth to a healthy baby boy! It's a miracle!"

Some people describe unlikely or improbable events as miracles.....

"I rolled my truck five times on the highway and walked away without a scratch....it's a miracle."

Then there's those, like myself, who believe it should only refer to the impossible....

"Jim can fly through the air just by flapping his arms like wings....it's a miracle."

So what exactly do you mean?

I don't really know-I can't really see how we can pin down any specific meaning to the term miracle.

 

[Radrook]

Testability is testability.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

If this, then that.

I don't see what you are getting at.

 

[dysert]

I'm sorry, atheism? Did you mean, "materialism?"

No.

 

[Radrook]

No.

I don't see the difference between the twain. Care to explain?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see what you are getting at.

What part of "if this, then that" is tripping you up?

 

[Radrook]

Except that it does.

If you say that the flagellum "could not have evolved" while arguing for a god (err designer), then you are kind of implying that this entity came down and "did something special".

Which indeed DOES fly in the face of the following:

I am not arguing against the concept of an intelligent designer employing whatever method he chooses to organize a process leading to the creation of living things

So that would include evolution by natural selection - which is what you were refering to.
But by rambling about "irreducible complexity" and the "flagellum", you are literally doing exactly that: arguing against "whatever methods" this designer might be using.

So indeed.... some consistency would be nice.

As it stands, I actually have little to no clue what your position on all this actually is. You swing back and forward, are incredibly vague, and refuse to share specifics about this "mysterious evidence" that you claim to have.

For the millionth time, I am not arguing against theistic evolution.