|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I understand that you believe there is a mistake but I still see your position as totally pointless, unreasonable and unsupportable. I still see no use, value or justification for presenting a supernatural cause to your scenario, and for the reasons I've given; pointing to the supernatural adds no knowledge, value, worth or explanation. We still have no more idea of how it happened then we did before.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: I understand that you believe there is a mistake Your mistake is technical.
jar writes: .but I still see your position as totally pointless, unreasonable and unsupportable. I still see no use, value or justification for presenting a supernatural cause to your scenario, and for the reasons I've given; pointing to the supernatural adds no knowledge, value, worth or explanation. Tell me, if it had been a supernatural being who had magicked the transformation, how would restricting ourselves to naturalistic hypotheses add knowledge, value, worth or explanation?
jar writes: We still have no more idea of how it happened then we did before. Supported hypotheses are ideas. The view that lake water does not have the chemical make up to transform spontaneously and instantly into Bordeaux wine couldn't be better supported. It would have to have the same chemical composition as grape juice in order for a spontaneous (but not instantaneous) transformation into grape wine to happen, in which case, it would be grape juice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Read what I have written.
We don't assign a naturalistic cause (although we do know that all we have ever found have been natural causes), we don't assign any cause. We put it is the unknown or unexplained folder.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable?
If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations?
jar writes: Again, you just post word salad, utter nonsense. Asking why scientific methods cannot be applied to that which is detectable is neither a "word salad" nor "nonsense". Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable?
jar writes: If trolls or Gods or Pixie dust were really supernatural they would not be capable of being examined by science. jar writes: How is supernatural distinguished from natural? If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations? You continue to conflate the ability to observe and scientifically examine the supernatural with the ability to prove that something is supernatural. Given that we can't prove any process is devoid of supernatural involvement either the best we can ever do is put forward hypotheses and seek to honestly test them against observation. This method can be applied to anything which is detectable.
jar writes: Until you can tell me what scientific methods are used to do that I will just wait for someone else to post. Let me introduce you to the hypothetico-deductive method.
quote: In the scenario where GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chooses to make himself empirically detectable to us there are a number of predictions which one could make and test in a bid to distinguish between that actuality and a hoax conducted by "a charlatan or con-man". If we don't use the methods of science to try and distinguish between those two things then how would we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More sophomoric asinine nonsense and word salad.
How is the supernatural detectable?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Beliefs are based on beliefs. Acceptance is based on acceptance. So basically this "accept" or "believe" distinction you have been making this entire thread is just an expression of what one's initial beliefs are. I don't see a fundamental difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking. The thought process is similar; it's the foundation that differs. Scientific thinking is based on reality; religious thinking is based on turtles. You accept reality; you believe in turtles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I don't see a fundamental difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking. The thought process is similar; it's the foundation that differs. Scientific thinking is based on reality; religious thinking is based on turtles. You accept reality; you believe in turtles. I don't see how the two processes could be any more fundamentally different. One includes a method to know when you are right or wrong and the other does not. One is bound by logic and reason where the other is not. The differences are greater than the differences between a video game and reality. The rules are different and the consequences are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
One is bound by logic and reason where the other is not. This is what we have been trying to tell you for years! Belief is not bound by logic and is often unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 374 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
This is what we have been trying to tell you for years! Belief is not bound by logic and is often unreasonable. Doesn't that bother you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9196 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Belief is not bound by logic and is often unreasonable. Ergo, potentially very dangerous.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
To me, belief is only illogical in the context of the modern secular world view. I don't consider it unreasonable at all to believe in a Creator. I don't consider it unreasonable to believe that this Creator knows each of us individually and collectively better than we know ourselves or even could know ourselves. What frightens many secular minds is not the idea of God...it is the idea that were they to accept it, they would lose control over themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
... potentially very dangerous. Granted. I feel, however, that the potential for humanity to destroy itself is even more dangerous. Some of us cherish the right of humanity to chart its own destiny. I prefer to believe in a leader bigger than we are, however. A leader who desires our best outcome. Unreasonable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What frightens many secular minds is not the idea of God...it is the idea that were they to accept it, they would lose control over themselves. Absolute nonsense! And probably projection as well. Just because believers think that without someone watching them all the time they would lose control over themselves doesn't mean that is the case for others.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9196 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Unreasonable?
Until you provide evidence, yes.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Religion includes a method to know when you are right or wrong: if the gods make your crops grow, you're right. If not, not. If the "word of God" sez so, you're right. If not, not.
One includes a method to know when you are right or wrong and the other does not. ProtoTypical writes:
Both are bound by logic and reason. The difference, as I've been trying to point out, is that the premises in religion are not bound by reality.
One is bound by logic and reason where the other is not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024