Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (New Testament, Methodist)
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.
The overall idea is precisely that god ordered the world to "just run" (aside from the alleged miracles of the bible and I suppose the ones people are claiming happen today), so obviously one wouldn't expect to find magical, miraculous causes in everyday events.
My point was that we can't just point to how many religious claims have been false to determine which ones are false today. Again, even medicine and science have truly embarrassing histories where pretty much everything claimed was BS. But they kept going and developed methods that led to far more accurate points of view. I don't see how something similar couldn't happen in theology.
That's a possibility. How would you tell if there were a sentient being behind the origins of life and the universe or not?
Science is a tool we use to gain understanding of the world around us. It should adapt as our knowledge expands. We can look back of those embarrassing histories and use them as a lesson.
That's a possibility. How would you tell if there were a sentient being behind the origins of life and the universe or not?
If I knew that, I'd be a millionaire, lol. But I would imagine philosophy/metaphysics would have to be involved, hence why so many of the arguments for/against theism are philosophical in nature. We couldn't just discover something like that via the natural (physical) sciences alone.
If I knew that, I'd be a millionaire, lol. But I would imagine philosophy/metaphysics would have to be involved, hence why so many of the arguments for/against theism are philosophical in nature. We couldn't just discover something like that via the natural (physical) sciences alone.
I disagree. Once we are able to use science to explain things with a reasonable degree of certainty and demonstrate it the metaphysical explanation is usually forgotten.
I wish I could find the video now but it goes something like this... Ancient lore explained nocturnal emissions as Lilith mating with human males while they slept. We can now, using science, explain how and why this happens. There is a guy out there who. even though he is aware of the explanation, insists that it doesn't disprove Lilith. He's not even wrong but he is in the minority believing being raped by a succubus is the most reasonable explanation.
I disagree. Once we are able to use science to explain things with a reasonable degree of certainty and demonstrate it the metaphysical explanation is usually forgotten.
I wish I could find the video now but it goes something like this... Ancient lore explained nocturnal emissions as Lilith mating with human males while they slept. We can now, using science, explain how and why this happens. There is a guy out there who. even though he is aware of the explanation, insists that it doesn't disprove Lilith. He's not even wrong but he is in the minority believing being raped by a succubus is the most reasonable explanation.
You sussed him. You can't validate the god -claim through any scientific evidence, so you have to try to wangle it through the backdoor of semantic tinkering and chop logic that Theist apologissts call 'Philosophy".
They spend half their time trying to debunk science to make God look a bit more plausible, and the rest of the time trying to to turn logic on its' head in hopes to do the same thing - fool people into thinking that Nothing is Known, in the futile belief belief that 'God' will be left as the only argument left on the table.
But 'God' isn't on the table at all. It never was. A priori God screws up all this thinking (including Vic's. even if simulated) and it means that they cannot be logically sound or correct, no matter how cunning the arguments are.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-16-2019 at 04:25 AM..
That's a possibility. How would you tell if there were a sentient being behind the origins of life and the universe or not?
Science is a tool we use to gain understanding of the world around us. It should adapt as our knowledge expands. We can look back of those embarrassing histories and use them as a lesson.
yuppers. I think the question for me would be "what do you mean by "behind it"?" But that's not really what we are talking about. and you are right, we can't know.
I am talking more about counter claims to the omni-thing that are easily gotten around by theist. Not that the theist argument is any better, but based on the counter claims validity, the theist can easily get around around it and make their case.
and trans point is also on point. When we base a claim on "nobody knows so ... whatever", those claims are less valid from the word jump. And if I use a counter claim based on "nobody knows so your wrong" its just not strong of a debate point.
so all that, I guess , I still mean, when you fight fairy tales with fairy tales, the isse never gets settled due the nature of the claim and counter claim. Thats why you don't see me really every use the "all evil" debate. Its make up, it has no more observational support than an 'all loving" god. so each side is left thinking the other side witch is the wicked one.
And I am left in slack jawed disbelief that they are arguing, very intensely, about two things that aren't even real.
The overall idea is precisely that god ordered the world to "just run" (aside from the alleged miracles of the bible and I suppose the ones people are claiming happen today), so obviously one wouldn't expect to find magical, miraculous causes in everyday events.
My point was that we can't just point to how many religious claims have been false to determine which ones are false today. Again, even medicine and science have truly embarrassing histories where pretty much everything claimed was BS. But they kept going and developed methods that led to far more accurate points of view. I don't see how something similar couldn't happen in theology.
Yes ... I think.
we can't use/say 'claim-A, claim-B" is wrong so all claims are wrong.
and, what I actually due, and that's why I say i am a middle of the roader, Is look at each claim. ClaimA+B are false and claim-c can be linked back to TSM. I don't not lump every claim under "religious = wrong"
yes, because science is wrong and doesn't know, it is not not a good method to forming a belief base on the phrase "well, nobody knows so ....fill in the blank" Its far better to lay out the data and then come up what an unifying theory that links the data pieces together. Knowing full will we have to change the story as we learn more.
yuppers. I think the question for me would be "what do you mean by "behind it"?" But that's not really what we are talking about. and you are right, we can't know.
I am talking more about counter claims to the omni-thing that are easily gotten around by theist. Not that the theist argument is any better, but based on the counter claims validity, the theist can easily get around around it and make their case.
and trans point is also on point. When we base a claim on "nobody knows so ... whatever", those claims are less valid from the word jump. And if I use a counter claim based on "nobody knows so your wrong" its just not strong of a debate point.
so all that, I guess , I still mean, when you fight fairy tales with fairy tales, the isse never gets settled due the nature of the claim and counter claim. Thats why you don't see me really every use the "all evil" debate. Its make up, it has no more observational support than an 'all loving" god. so each side is left thinking the other side witch is the wicked one.
And I am left in slack jawed disbelief that they are arguing, very intensely, about two things that aren't even real.
I agree the 'evil' debate isn't one I favour, but it has to be used, just like the 'morality' argument, whenever the theists side play the 'god is good, just and loving' card as well as the argument from morality.
We just have to show that the evidence is Not for a good, Just and loving god micromanaging the world, but none there at all, for all we can tell, and morality is human, not only in trying to runour society, but in judging God's actions in the Bible. This is one that seems to bounce off everyone But every time a believer tries to excuse some action of god's by blaming Man, society or satan, they are judging the Bible using human morality.
This is a logically and evidentially solid position, and the believers can only field 'God knows best' argument, which isn't .and argument at all, but an excuse.
This is of course related to Biblegod and is nothing to do with 'something behind' the universe. But it's amazing how Personal that academic discussion can get, eh, Arach mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Yes ... I think.
we can't use/say 'claim-A, claim-B" is wrong so all claims are wrong.
and, what I actually due, and that's why I say i am a middle of the roader, Is look at each claim. ClaimA+B are false and claim-c can be linked back to TSM. I don't not lump every claim under "religious = wrong"
yes, because science is wrong and doesn't know, it is not not a good method to forming a belief base on the phrase "well, nobody knows so ....fill in the blank" Its far better to lay out the data and then come up what an unifying theory that links the data pieces together. Knowing full will we have to change the story as we learn more.
Science is wrong? Are you serious? And you were doing so well. Sadly you are falling into the Theisthink trap - come up with an Ism that seems half way believable to you, dismiss science and put Faith in Your particular Theory in there.
I disagree. Once we are able to use science to explain things with a reasonable degree of certainty and demonstrate it the metaphysical explanation is usually forgotten.
And if those who say the universe is all of contiguous spacetime, matter and energy are correct, science will be impotent in answering the question of how it came into existence. There is no physics of non-physical reality. This is why metaphysics is inevitably relevant in the first place; it's not necessarily a question of natural science. Not anymore.
And if those who say the universe is all of contiguous spacetime, matter and energy are correct, science will be impotent in answering the question of how it came into existence. There is no physics of non-physical reality. This is why metaphysics is inevitably relevant in the first place; it's not necessarily a question of natural science. Not anymore.
No, Because metaphysics cannot answer anything without validation from science. Especially the kind of 'Metaphysics' that tries to make some science -dismissing point by saying (metaphysical) evidentialism is dead while at the same time accepting that (scientifically validated) evidence is valid. We can do without the kind of 'metaphysics' that has to make a case by cheating.
Let Metaphysics (or philosophy) argue and debate away. It may come up with some good ideas - even avenues for science to follow - though from Relativity to the Hiigs -Boson, I can't think of a single avenue that Philosophy suggested that science follow.
No, what science can't show, can only be guessed, and guesses are no more than guesses.
And if those who say the universe is all of contiguous spacetime, matter and energy are correct, science will be impotent in answering the question of how it came into existence.
This is where we ask you to present your evidence for it coming into existence rather than always being there in some form or other.
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.
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.
But every time a believer tries to excuse some action of god's by blaming Man, society or satan, they are judging the Bible using human morality. 
