U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-06-2011, 11:35 AM
 
34,634 posts, read 8,924,012 times
Reputation: 4804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
One has but to read his thoughts when he's sitting amongst his spiritual cohort, like a group of 'yotes up on the hill, looking at their spiritual moon.
Nice simile. You deserved a rep for the post but I can't yet.

Quote:
GofurIt, friends. Whatever your soul needs.

Mystic, peace be with you! Apparently I'm surely doomed to die of pigheaded-ness!
I'm not happy about it. Mystic is smart and educated and I'd hoped he could have stepped back and asked 'What if there's some other explanation?' But apparently no. I'm sorry for it as it was nice to have him in our trench for a short while. I wouldn't even ask him to suddenly go materialist, just to accept that what we know we know and what we don't we don't. But again we seem to have got to the impasse.

 
Old 09-06-2011, 02:35 PM
 
37,553 posts, read 25,268,086 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
And where there's a will, there's an inheritance.

Must you be so arrogant and offensive, MysticPhD? Not that I will lose any sleep over it. In fact, I rather enjoy seeing you blow your cool.
I am glad I supplied some enjoyment by blowing my cool, catman . . . I was having a bad day. It happens only when confronted by repeated and unbelievable pigheadedness and arrogance . . . founded in deliberate ignorance of the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of the issues under discussion. It is not a crime to be ignorant of them because they are not common knowledge . . . but it is incredibly annoying. There is absolutely no basis for the certainty and intransigence in the materialist positions displayed here. Neither the materialist view nor my view have any solid incontrovertible evidence to support certainty . . . but they DO have the SAME evidence. The rest is hypothesis . . . which I have . . . but materialists do not. My hypothesis remains to be tested when the capabilities are there. Materialists simply ASSume their view as the default without even providing a hypothesis that can be tested.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 02:42 PM
 
37,553 posts, read 25,268,086 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Obsession isn't a bad thing. Some people will obsessively defend Bible God (or a myriad of similar Gods) or Science, but it takes a special kind to be obsessed with such personal attacks. The kind that has absolutely no logical argument left and feels cornered. It doesn't take much to use the kind of words you do, the favor can be easily returned. But that is not why we're in a discussion forum. If you can't handle it, you might as well avoid situations that make it uncomfortable.
I was having a bad day. Truth is truth . . . not attacks. Ignorance is not a crime but deliberate ignorance is annoying as hell.
Quote:
Having said that, I don't think anybody would disagree that Science has its limitations, that being the knowledge base. And nobody should disagree that Science grows by the day, as we acquire greater knowledge and answer to questions... as "Why", "When", "How"... are fundamental to Science. How about any religion... does it have limitations, or is there at least one immune from it?
The point is that religions and their beliefs have NOTHING to do with the scientific issue of God's existence . . . yet those beliefs are obsessively and repeatedly interjected as arguments against the existence of God. What ANYONE believes ABOUT God has ZERO relevance to the scientific issue of fact involved in the existence of God.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,024,080 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The point is that religions and their beliefs have NOTHING to do with the scientific issue of God's existence . . . yet those beliefs are obsessively and repeatedly interjected as arguments against the existence of God. What ANYONE believes ABOUT God has ZERO relevance to the scientific issue of fact involved in the existence of God.
Most religions have been politicized throughout the history, so any notion that is perceived to weaken the argument is promoted as a threat. Consequently, you can't separate the issue. That is also the whole premise of this thread, an attempt to portray Science as nothing but a religion.

But yet, the other side is guilty as well. We spend way too much time arguing the Science is lame, or that there is no God. Science doesn't require God. It looks at causes, or lack of, on its own merits, its strengths. Any notion of "God", in Science, however is a cop-out from seeking answers through observation and analysis.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,073,181 times
Reputation: 3717
"Science doesn't require God. It looks at causes, or lack of, on its own merits, its strengths. Any notion of "God", in Science, however is a cop-out from seeking answers through observation and analysis."

Nicely put, EG! Thx, and have a good day!
 
Old 09-06-2011, 07:54 PM
 
16,301 posts, read 24,254,280 times
Reputation: 8261
Science has it's limitations

Yes, and that strengthens it, that validates it, that keeps it honest, and hones it to a keen edge. It takes a fool to think something doesn't have limitations.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 07:57 PM
 
37,553 posts, read 25,268,086 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
But yet, the other side is guilty as well. We spend way too much time arguing the Science is lame, or that there is no God. Science doesn't require God. It looks at causes, or lack of, on its own merits, its strengths. Any notion of "God", in Science, however is a cop-out from seeking answers through observation and analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
"Science doesn't require God. It looks at causes, or lack of, on its own merits, its strengths. Any notion of "God", in Science, however is a cop-out from seeking answers through observation and analysis."

Nicely put, EG! Thx, and have a good day!
You miss the point entirely . . . science is a method of investigation and discovery. It can be applied to any questions of existence. Arbitrarily excluding the existence of God from investigation is a holdover from the Science/Religion schism of centuries ago. It serves the religions because it insulates them from challenge. It serves science because it prevents the autocratic intrusion of religion into science. But now that Dawkins and the new breed of atheists are launching a full-on assault on religions (deservedly so) . . . the fallout is that the existence of God is collateral damage. Proving beliefs ABOUT God false through the idiocy or absurdity of ancient ignorant beliefs . . . should only affect the religions using those beliefs. Unfortunately . . . Dawkins et al. presume to equate their efforts with proving God false . . . an inexcusable arrogance. No where in science would it be acceptable to prove beliefs ABOUT a phenomenon false and proclaim it as evidence of the falsity of the existence of the phenomenon.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-06-2011 at 08:12 PM..
 
Old 09-06-2011, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,699,871 times
Reputation: 12219
No where in science would it be acceptable to prove beliefs ABOUT a phenomenon false and proclaim it as evidence of the falsity of the phenomenon.

Really? That is exactly how science works....
 
Old 09-06-2011, 08:13 PM
 
37,553 posts, read 25,268,086 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
No where in science would it be acceptable to prove beliefs ABOUT a phenomenon false and proclaim it as evidence of the falsity of the existence of the phenomenon.

Really? That is exactly how science works....
Fixed it for you.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,088 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
I think we probably agree more than disagree on this point. We've been discussing 'labels' (secularists, atheists, theists). And, that's the problem with labels; to discuss the standpoint of each, requires that you use absolutes that don't actually conform to the all variations among those who identify themselves with the labels.
To an extent I agree. However, there are certainly philosophical elements as well as religious elements to this discussion. I'm sure that you would agree that terms such as secularism, atheism and theism come with the territory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
I agree, but it should apply to everyone, from all labels. However, I contend that the bias will generally run the opposite way. I think, in general, people receive a theistic bias from childhood. Even those who come from non-religious households are likely to develop a theist bias based solely on societal mores and traditions.
This (bias from childhood) appears to me to be a quite common and popular view. I personally would be inclined to question this assessment. Having been around a few years and in observing my siblings, friends and children, I'm not convinced that world views are so easily passed along through parental example and encouragement. In my case, I could only wish that it would have been possible for me to 'brainwash' my kids into adopting my world view and values. As well, I would certainly agree that parents of any of the diverse number of various beliefs and world views would all be capable of having equal influence on their children. I actually see the culture of the day as inevitably having the greater influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
No. I'll try to clarify; if speculation is substantiated, it is done so through objectivity. Can you have a subjective experience regarding a speculation (i.e. a personal experience you believe confirms your concept of God)? Yes. Can you substantiate that speculation based solely on your own subjective experience? I contend, no you can't.

This continues to hit on what I feel is a root problem; differing standards for substantiation of god speculations. The theist has a subjective experience that's "real for
them".
Understood, I think. I would say that my relating of a personal experience will probably only be effective in persuading people who are close to me and know me well enough in order to be impacted. In other words, the cases where personal experiences would serve as an effective apologetic would be extremely rare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Sure, we could find flaws with anything that we discuss, especially if our only point is to find fault with speaking in absolutes. But, compare the track record of objective analysis through the SM against anything and let me know what you think comes close.
Agreed. I certainly have nothing against objective analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Truth be known, what you've described is still one of the strongest arguments for the SM. If the SM uncovers acquired knowledge that is incorrect, it will 'debunk' it and proceed to correct it with the best possible information using the best available methods. Religious doctrine and/or speculation won't.
I understand your point here. However, I would like to point out that doctrine is inevitable. With respect to Christianity, as soon as the question, 'Who is God?' or 'Who is Jesus?' is asked, any answer will cause the responder to automatically be up to their necks in doctrine. Those who would say, 'Don't give me doctrine, just give me Jesus.' are spouting absurd nonsense.

I would also point out that the modern practice of peer review actually has it's origins in the theological seminaries of old. Martin Luther unwittingly began the reformation due to a paper (The Ninety-Five Theses) he posted on the door in Wittenberg. It was customary for them to post these papers in latin so that they would only be read and understood (reviewed) by the intellectual elites of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
I have to call this one as it is. Considering that the topic of this thread is "Science has it's limitations"... and since I said, "I am, however, open to your expanded thoughts on the kind of evidence that is off limits to the method"... I have to say that a single general reference to Dr. Craig's extensive list of objections is a bit of a cop-out from someone who otherwise seems to be fairly reasonable and open-minded. I'm not feigning interest in your thoughts on this specific point. I'd really like to know.
I think I can understand why you would view it as a "cop-out." It was my hope to get a little bit more specificity from you - perhaps I should have articulated it differently. My apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
I'll ask like this; What do you think is Dr. Craig's most compelling argument? Is there a single argument that you feel substantiates your speculation in a god, or are there multiple? Specifically, which ones?
Dr. Craig's apparent point is that the SM, in and of itself, cannot get us to God. If it could, there obviously would be no need to have these discussions. Conversely, the SM cannot substantiate the view that God does not exist.

As far as arguments for Gods existence, I find the classical arguments, the historicity of the Biblical record and of Jesus and the existence of the Christian church to be the most compelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Again, there's a caveat with 'labels'. Yes, in general, I agree it can, depending on whether the label is chosen to reflect beliefs or strictly a lack of belief.
It seems to me that any one positing the view that 'there is no God' is making a positive assertion. They are making a positive assertion about something they believe. However, I would be interested if you would expound a bit on this belief vs. non-belief assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Actually, if it's a flavor of atheism that incorporates doctrine similar to religion, then it's the functional equivalent as far as I'm concerned.
Then you would agree that atheists can be just as dogmatic about their atheism as theists can be about theism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Ok, but this thread already seems to be the appropriate place for it as I commented above.
Perhaps I'm not following you. My understanding is that we would basically be going over to arguments for and against God's existence. This does strike me as being rather off topic with respect to the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
I think we probably share more in common than is apparent in this discussion. Our single largest difference is likely to be our position on currently available evidence and it's implications on speculations regarding any specific definition of God.
Perhaps. Time will likely tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top