VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Science does not adress metaphysics at all, so you are as usual in error.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because science itself is not the only measure or source of truth. Science does suggest that the metaphysical may have a role (the "Outside Agent"), but as soon as the possibility of the metaphysical is identified, science is now powerless to provide any additional information about it.
The assumption that the material is all there is... is deeply flawed. So... the metaphysical is not out of place in this discussion... particularly since I've made the case that science itself infers its existence.
Since you replied about my challenge...The why do you mix metaphysics with physics?
Right. So if P'W is not evidence of the proposition, then it's equally valid for any belief system. The question then becomes which belief system would P'W apply to? This is problem #1.Right. In no way is it evidence.
That's not what the "wager" is about at all...
So, if you've heard people use it as "evidence" for believing in God, whoever used it as evidence was misguided.
But if someone says, "better to err on the side of caution," they have it right... that's what PW means.
If Allah is, then you lose everything if you ignore him. Or Cthulhu is then you lose everything... Hopefully the problem is beginning to dawn on you.PW actually affirms that it is inherently impossible to "prove" the existence of God one way or the other (which is why it is not "evidence"). But it also suggests that having a position on that question is not an option that we should be playing with...
If God is, then you lose everything if you ignore Him.
Only if your faith and investment in religion is little.If God is not, then you lose little if you believe in error.
The biggest problem with P'W IMO, is that an omniscient being would know if the only reason for belief was to avoid hell. Additionally, I don't believe you can choose your beliefs.Caution would suggest that you don't take the chance of presuming that He is not.
Since you replied about my challenge...
Atheists believe there is no god... no "metaphysics" if you will.
So, my challenge them is to explain those four points of "belief" (that I have been falsely accused of stating as a "straw man") and give a reasonable scientific explanation of those issues... without invoking anything "metaphysical."
Obviously... they've been completely incapable of doing so. All I've heard is whining about why they don't have to.
I never said it addresses the metaphysical.Science does not adress metaphysics at all, so you are as usual in error.
I never said it addresses the metaphysical.
I said that science suggests that it exists. To "address," you need to describe and quantify.
To reiterate... the first law of thermodynamics states that no matter/energy can be created or destroyed in a closed system (the universe). Since the universe is, then it must have always been... unless acted upon by a force outside the closed system. The second law states that everything must reach equilibrium... which we don't yet have in this closed system. Therefore, it must have had a beginning... unless it has been acted upon by an outside force.
Remove the possibility of an outside force (the metaphysical), then these two laws are in directly and irreconcilable conflict.
This suggests an outside force must be in play. An external force (the metaphysical) is inferred by the data. That's the correct scientific conclusion.
You're just whining because you have no plausible scientific answer.Atheism does not require rejecting metaphysics, just god(s).
You are in error yet again.
Your stupid questions are just that, stupid as you try to mix metaphysics with physics. Thats bad science and even worse theology.
You're just whining because you have no plausible scientific answer.
And you're playing word games.
Atheists can believe in "metaphysics" but not "God"? How stupid is that assertion?
Whatever force there is in the metaphysical realm actually IS the core definition of what God is. Note, I'm not trying to prove the Christian God... or any other particular representation of God... I'm just demonstrating than the naturalistic world view is at odds with science itself... while deism (metaphysicalism, if you will) is not.
So... I'll let you rework the questions... Tell me a reasonable understanding of those four issues I raised that is both scientifically consistent and uses whatever "metaphysical" force you want... and try to demonstrate that the position is not one of "faith" or belief in things you can't see, measure, or prove.
Indeed... so much we don't know... yet atheistic scientists have no problem declaring that there's no need to believe in a God at all. It's dishonest and unscientific to assert.Err, no, your statement regarding the universe is unknown. We dont know if its a closed or open system. We do know how long it has existed however. It is not eternal.
Interesting... they're not "laws" because in cases like I mentioned, they are literally in conflict with one another, right? Can't both be true all the time... in a naturalistic world view. But we can still treat them as "laws" in all of our calculations...Law are btw a term not really used in science anymore.
More whining and word games.And no, science does not suggest metaphysics exist. It does not adress metaphysics at all. You really really need a philosophy 101, theology 101 and science 101 because you understand very little in all three fields.
Indeed... so much we don't know... yet atheistic scientists have no problem declaring that there's no need to believe in a God at all. It's dishonest and unscientific to assert.
Interesting... they're not "laws" because in cases like I mentioned, they are literally in conflict with one another, right? Can't both be true all the time... in a naturalistic world view. But we can still treat them as "laws" in all of our calculations...
More whining and word games.
Just address the 4 points.
My poor quality posts?No I’m not playing wordgames.
I cant help your poor quality posts where you know very little about the subject(s).
Also - I’m not responsible for your education.
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to claim science and reason as a means of discovering truth and to not yet discovered a god and thus they declare "they don't believe."I don't follow your question...
Just address the four points and demonstrate for all to see and read that you are SO much better informed and SO much better intellectually and SO much wiser than I am..... you just run around in circles and keep asserting things you dont undrrstand or have data to support.
Entertaining but of no value.
No... the logical thing to say is "I don't know" anytime something is unknown or even unknowable.It's perfectly reasonable for someone to claim science and reason as a means of discovering truth and to not yet discovered a god and thus they declare "they don't believe."
Classic.Also - I’m not responsible for your education.
what??? how???Which is a straw man.
Telling someone what they believe is a straw man.what??? how???
Just address the four points and demonstrate for all to see and read that you are SO much better informed and SO much better intellectually and SO much wiser than I am.
Just one post and it will be SO clear...
But you can't... or you won't... because you are just blowing smoke.
Put up or shut up.
Atheism is about belief. If I say I don't believe in gods, I'm not declaring that there are no gods.what??? how???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?