Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 151 of 262 (723697)
04-06-2014 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Omnivorous
06-19-2011 8:17 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
Phat writes:
You do have to admit, though that the current facts that we now have propose that the sum total of knowledge and speculation of the known and unknown universe originate from one species on one planet. Namely us. As Sagan said,
quote:
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Granted, more intelligence and intelligent species will eventually be found.
For now, however, all theories, beliefs, and speculations originate from one very tiny place in a very large reality. Logically, God need not exist, but what source of creativity do you replace Him with?
Omni writes:
I would replace God with billions and billions (thank you, Carl) of curious human minds, freed from superstition and fear, looking up at the stars with a shiver of awe and thinking, "I wonder..." rather than "I worship". (...)
Atheists taught the world that the only things that go bump in the night are the things you can see when you turn on the light. If we ever emerge totally from what darkness we still inhabit, it will have been atheists, not theists, who led us there.
I would argue, however, that there is a realm of mystery and that a supernatural realm is still a possibility.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Omnivorous, posted 06-19-2011 8:17 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2014 8:09 AM Phat has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(9)
Message 152 of 262 (723699)
04-06-2014 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Phat
04-06-2014 2:58 AM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
This is understandable. You are a theist. Your will is driven in this direction. But like Omni said, every time the light has come the mystery has dissolved away. Throughout all our millennia this has always been. We have no cause to expect otherwise from the darkness ahead.
There will always be mystery. No matter how bright the light there will always be someplace for some to imagine their deity. The better word for mystery, those burning questions which we have yet to answer, is our ignorance. Theism is dependent on our ignorance to survive. Without some dark ignorance in which the theist can invest their hopeful wondering their fantasies all fall away.
Theists must encourage the darkness, must embrace our ignorance. But, for a species on the verge of awakening to the universe this is not a good thing.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Phat, posted 04-06-2014 2:58 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 6:11 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 158 by GDR, posted 04-06-2014 9:10 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 170 by Phat, posted 04-09-2014 12:32 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 153 of 262 (723712)
04-06-2014 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by AZPaul3
04-06-2014 8:09 AM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
Wow! Wish I had been around when this thread was in full swing. Great stuff.
AZPaul3 writes:
This is understandable. You are a theist. Your will is driven in this direction. But like Omni said, every time the light has come the mystery has dissolved away. Throughout all our millennia this has always been. We have no cause to expect otherwise from the darkness ahead.
There will always be mystery. No matter how bright the light there will always be someplace for some to imagine their deity. The better word for mystery, those burning questions which we have yet to answer, is our ignorance. Theism is dependent on our ignorance to survive. Without some dark ignorance in which the theist can invest their hopeful wondering their fantasies all fall away.
Theists must encourage the darkness, must embrace our ignorance. But, for a species on the verge of awakening to the universe this is not a good thing.
I believe that your response promptly answers Phat's original assertion with which this thread was begun:
Phat writes:
This forum has seen a diminished response from Biblical Creationists who limit themselves philosophically, as well as an increase from many atheists who in my opinion also limit themselves philosophically in regards to considering a Creator, never mind creationism.
Phat is arguing that this forum is lacking open-mindedness on both sides of the equation. While many Creationists are open to the possibility that they do not have all the answers and they may in fact be incorrect, many atheists are not willing to admit the same thing. You have basically confirmed this by making a statement like this:
Theism is dependent on our ignorance to survive. Without some dark ignorance in which the theist can invest their hopeful wondering their fantasies all fall away.
This is a perfect example of an unwillingness to admit the possibility that perhaps you don't hold all the answers. Despite your speech of "embracing ignorance," you do not actually do this. You have presupposed that you are indeed, the correct perspective, and the theist position is fantasy.
This is interesting to me because many prolific atheists would actually agree that we do not hold all the answers, and base their argument on the non-existence of God on the assertion that the nature/existence of God cannot be known, and therefore we cannot know that the Judeo-Christian God exists alone, or ITS nature, or whether or not multiple God's exist, etc. Here are a couple examples of atheists debated by Matt Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:
Debate 1
Debate 2
In each debate, the gentleman holding the atheist perspective argues that one of the biggest reasons they cannot believe in God is there is no realistic evidence of his/its/their nature/existence.
So, in summary, I would argue that the theist position is not dependant on ignorance to survive. The theist position is dependant on claims, demanding faith, corroborated by personal experince. I would say that the theist position actually encourages darkness a little more than the atheistic one. The theist says: "All that I know about God is revealed in Scripture." We walk by faith, not sight. We embrace not knowing everything rather than putting our hopes in what reasoning says is reality. We hope for the reason that hope is brighter than what seems to be dismal reality. But even within brightest hope is darkness in the form of tough questions, tragic moments, and mundane life. I do not have all the answers. I never will. But I think the value is in the journey of it all.
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2014 8:09 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by frako, posted 04-06-2014 6:42 PM Raphael has replied
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 04-06-2014 7:57 PM Raphael has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 154 of 262 (723713)
04-06-2014 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Raphael
04-06-2014 6:11 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
This is a perfect example of an unwillingness to admit the possibility that perhaps you don't hold all the answers. Despite your speech of "embracing ignorance," you do not actually do this. You have presupposed that you are indeed, the correct perspective, and the theist position is fantasy.
This is interesting to me because many prolific atheists would actually agree that we do not hold all the answers, and base their argument on the non-existence of God on the assertion that the nature/existence of God cannot be known, and therefore we cannot know that the Judeo-Christian God exists alone, or ITS nature, or whether or not multiple God's exist, etc. Here are a couple examples of atheists debated by Matt Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:
Im an atheist that believes believing in a god is silly, stupid and childish. But i don't totally discount the possibility of god, but keep in mind its on the same level as i cant discount the possibility of a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
As long as there is no direct evidence pointing to a god, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter there is no reason to believe that either exist and its completely unreasonable to alter your life to the possibility that either exist. Just because there are gaps in our knowledge (we don't know everything that is orbiting Jupiter for example) , that does not mean we can just make it up as we go along.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 6:11 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 8:02 PM frako has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 155 of 262 (723714)
04-06-2014 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Raphael
04-06-2014 6:11 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
While many Creationists are open to the possibility that they do not have all the answers and they may in fact be incorrect, many atheists are not willing to admit the same thing.
What bizarre universe do you draw this conclusion from?

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 6:11 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 8:07 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 156 of 262 (723715)
04-06-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by frako
04-06-2014 6:42 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
frako writes:
Im an atheist that believes believing in a god is silly, stupid and childish. But i don't totally discount the possibility of god, but keep in mind its on the same level as i cant discount the possibility of a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
As long as there is no direct evidence pointing to a god, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter there is no reason to believe that either exist and its completely unreasonable to alter your life to the possibility that either exist.
I do not believe you have presented an accurate comparison, my friend. I understand there may be some satire in your words, but I don't really understand.
An accurate comparison would be if ancient writings about this teapot existed, writing about real places and real people, and these writings made claims that the teapot existed. The collections of writings would not have been written by some committee somewhere, or group of people, but a simple collection of letters written by different people claiming to be eye-witnesses to the teapot, all at different times, all corroborating the same story. Not only would these writings make outrageous claims, (like a teapot orbiting jupiter) but there would have to be hundreds of times as many more of these ancient manuscripts describing said teapot as there are describing mainstream, accepted as true historical characters and events. An entire demographic of the world would form an ideology around the testimonies of the teapot, corroborating the ideology with subjective personal experiences. And despite thousands of years of time, the same writings would remain unchanged, claiming the same things, making the same challenges.
Then and only then would that be an accurate comparison. Can provide facts to back up my little allegory if needed
Just because there are gaps in our knowledge (we don't know everything that is orbiting Jupiter for example) , that does not mean we can just make it up as we go along.
We're not making it up as we go along . The teapot has appeared. We have seen him, in the words of John (1 John 1:3, John 21:24). It's not conjecture. It's not musings. It's testimony.
But despite all of the evidence it is still a matter of faith for me, and I am willing to be 100% incorrect. I have enough faith to be wrong about my faith. The question, then, is do you have enough faith in what reason says is reality to entertain the thought that the gaps in our knowledge are big enough to include God. Not church. Not a building. Or a set of rules. Not a prayer. Not christians, or Jews, or Muslims, but God.
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by frako, posted 04-06-2014 6:42 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by frako, posted 04-07-2014 3:57 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2014 10:03 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 157 of 262 (723716)
04-06-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by hooah212002
04-06-2014 7:57 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
hooah212002 writes:
What bizarre universe do you draw this conclusion from?
Hi there hooah212002! The context in which I speak is the one Phat presented earlier. I apologize if I generalized, we're talking about creationists on this forum, not creationists in general. Hope that makes more sense!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 04-06-2014 7:57 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 158 of 262 (723718)
04-06-2014 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by AZPaul3
04-06-2014 8:09 AM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
Paul3 writes:
This is understandable. You are a theist. Your will is driven in this direction. But like Omni said, every time the light has come the mystery has dissolved away. Throughout all our millennia this has always been. We have no cause to expect otherwise from the darkness ahead.
Theists must encourage the darkness, must embrace our ignorance. But, for a species on the verge of awakening to the universe this is not a good thing.
This is just plain wrong. I'm a theist and I don't look for my Christian faith to answer questions that are appropriate to science. Actually I'm much more inclined to have science inform my Christian faith.
Somebody brought up the fact that people once believed that Zeus caused lightening to occur but when people found out how lightening was caused they found they didn't need Zeus anymore. The fact is that it is a case of mixing up process and agency. Just because science uncovers the process does not mean it has uncovered the agency or the basis for the process.
I lack scientific knowledge but I am a huge fan of what science has accomplished and am keen to see what comes next. I encourage light not darkness and I certainly do not embrace ignorance.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2014 8:09 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 159 of 262 (723722)
04-06-2014 11:47 PM


I accept. Thank you.
For Raphael:
Theism is dependent on our ignorance to survive.
This is a perfect example of an unwillingness to admit the possibility that perhaps you don't hold all the answers.
This logic is astoundingly bad. The statement is one of fact, observed in all religions, is the very reason religions developed and is further evidenced by the responses received.
Nowhere in there is any axiom of knowing all the answers. Nowhere is there expressed an eschewing of the possibility of not holding all the answers. Some so wished this to be the case they have conjured demons to fight where there are none.
Despite your speech of "embracing ignorance," you do not actually do this.
I hope this is misspoken or an error of syntax because the "embracing ignorance" phrase was applied to theists. I am not a theist so, no, you are correct, I do not actually do this. I do not embrace the areas of our ignorance. I strive to eliminate them.
You have presupposed that you are indeed, the correct perspective, and the theist position is fantasy.
Correction. A heavy preponderance of evidence leads to this conclusion. It is hardly "presupposed". Theism is fantasy. The archives of this forum are chuck full of theism's denials of observed facts and the expressions of beliefs to which there are no logical steps from reality.
Theism. Belief, not just without evidence, but contrary to evidence. Fantasy.
I would say that the theist position actually encourages darkness a little more than the atheistic one.
.
We walk by faith, not sight. We embrace not knowing everything rather than putting our hopes in what reasoning says is reality.
.
The question, then, is do you have enough faith in what reason says is reality to entertain the thought that the gaps in our knowledge are big enough to include God.
Do you even know you have proven my point? If our views on theism agree that it embraces the darkness rather than the light, that it embraces the mystery rather than the knowledge, that to sustain the theism you must point to the gaps in our knowledge, must point to those areas of our ignorance, in order to point to your deity, if we agree on this then why the push back?
There is no contention here. As I said in my post above, and as you have so eloquently written in yours, theism is dependent on the darkness of ignorance to sustain itself.
For GDR:
Theists must encourage the darkness, must embrace our ignorance. But, for a species on the verge of awakening to the universe this is not a good thing.
This is just plain wrong.
And yet you point to our ignorance ...
quote:
... because science uncovers the process does not mean it has uncovered the agency ...
in which to sustain the hope that some deity is there.
Gentlemen, I do not have to support the position I stated in my message. The two of you have done so for me.
Edited by AZPaul3, : title

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 04-07-2014 2:18 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 163 by Raphael, posted 04-08-2014 2:15 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 160 of 262 (723726)
04-07-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by AZPaul3
04-06-2014 11:47 PM


Re: I accept. Thank you.
GDR writes:
... because science uncovers the process does not mean it has uncovered the agency ...
AZPaul3 writes:
in which to sustain the hope that some deity is there.
No. I'm like pretty much everyone else. It isn't a hope it is a belief and it has nothing to do with the accuracy of any branch of science. Science has done an incredible job of revealing natural processes and how we can understand and even use them. Science does not tell us why those processes exist.
Take evolution for an example. Science along with other fields of study have uncovered a great deal about the process that has resulted in life as we now but it can't tell us how that process began. Science might some day discover a process that resulted in the evolutionary process coming into existence and maybe some day the process that initiated the process that initiated the process of evolution will be discovered, but ultimately you are looking at an infinite series of processes required for life as we know it to exist.
There are any number of theistic scientists that are just as open as any atheistic scientist in bringing light to scientific darkness.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2014 11:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AZPaul3, posted 04-07-2014 5:08 AM GDR has replied
 Message 178 by onifre, posted 04-10-2014 11:30 AM GDR has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 161 of 262 (723728)
04-07-2014 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Raphael
04-06-2014 8:02 PM


Re: How Atheists Saved Philosophy
Then and only then would that be an accurate comparison. Can provide facts to back up my little allegory if needed
Yea ancient writings don't count for much, we have ancient writings about dragons, comets being messengers of gods, crackens, monsters, .... and gods all belong on the same shelf fiction
I can also provide facts to back this up.
We're not making it up as we go along . The teapot has appeared. We have seen him, in the words of John (1 John 1:3, John 21:24). It's not conjecture. It's not musings. It's testimony.
So did Hercules, its testimony not a made up story about a demi god.
But despite all of the evidence it is still a matter of faith for me, and I am willing to be 100% incorrect. I have enough faith to be wrong about my faith. The question, then, is do you have enough faith in what reason says is reality to entertain the thought that the gaps in our knowledge are big enough to include God. Not church. Not a building. Or a set of rules. Not a prayer. Not Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, but God
Maby 30 years ago but nowadays the gap would be in the abstract time before time in the space before space. In the words of your fellow believers god is outside the universe (universe being everything that exists )
Look sure we could be wrong, we could all have been created with the memories we have 5 minutes ago. but without something tangible, (discovering the previous statement in 5000 years would still not make it tangible) there is no point in speculating or believing in a god like creature. Now if say tomorrow the stars realigned to spell out im god and im here that would be tangible, if in our DNA we found a writing "made by god", that would be tangible, if tomorrow the news would interview someone near Niagara falls and he would say look im the son of god taste of the waters they are now wine and the whole bloody river turns to wine, sure praise the lord. But if you think ancient text are so reliable make sure you go kill a pigeon after your next surgery or it wont work and youl still be sick, it was all written down nicely by the Romans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 8:02 PM Raphael has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(7)
Message 162 of 262 (723729)
04-07-2014 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by GDR
04-07-2014 2:18 AM


Re: I accept. Thank you.
Science might some day discover a process that resulted in the evolutionary process coming into existence and maybe some day the process that initiated the process that initiated the process of evolution will be discovered, but ultimately you are looking at an infinite series of processes required for life as we know it to exist.
Again, GDR, right there is the reliance on our ignorance. Theists need there to be another level of unknown beyond what we have discovered. That over there, where we have not been, that is where this god's work is done.
Theists find the black box and slap a label on it "God Inside". But when we open the box and another natural process pops out they have to go deeper into the shadows to slap their label on the next box. They win every time. If it's not there where we look then it is in the next step beyond our knowledge, in the shadows, in our ignorance.
If they didn't have this infinite roll of labels they could not maintain the fiction. One could not be a theist. There has to be someplace where this god's work was done. As the light shines deeper into the shadows there will always be that next patch of ignorance ahead.
This is not some opinion. It is fact born of observation. This has been going on for millennia and we have all seen the process in action. Theism needs the mystery or it ceases to exist. Theism must find those gaps in our knowledge, must embrace our ignorance, must encourage the darkness, to maintain the fantasy that the mystery still exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 04-07-2014 2:18 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by GDR, posted 04-08-2014 10:56 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 163 of 262 (723770)
04-08-2014 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by AZPaul3
04-06-2014 11:47 PM


Re: I accept. Thank you.
AZPaul3 writes:
This logic is astoundingly bad. The statement is one of fact, observed in all religions, is the very reason religions developed and is further evidenced by the responses received.
Nowhere in there is any axiom of knowing all the answers. Nowhere is there expressed an eschewing of the possibility of not holding all the answers. Some so wished this to be the case they have conjured demons to fight where there are none.
Well gosh. Perhaps I have done battle with a little straw man Let's try this again.
When I speak of a GOD, I speak of from the Judeo-Christian perspective.
You have stated that the reason religions developed was simply because of ignorance. Perhaps I need some clarification? Within my perspective is the narrative that God inserted Himself into humanity. There was not a man in a cave somewhere who saw lightning and pegged the word "god" on it because he did not understand the natural process that causes lightning. There is a narrative. A narrative claiming there is something (or someone) beyond the natural world. I tend to side with GDR when he says these claims do not negate science or the natural processes we have observed. These claims simply say there is something else. Something not so simple as to be obvious. I would say my perspective has a couple layers to it:
1. The Natural World. This is everything observable, testable, and defined. Hypotheses are formed and corroborated with data. Gravity works. The earth is round. E=mc^2. Language, culture, all of the "ologies" . In other words, reality observed by the human.
2. The Supernatural World. This is something else. We would not know that it exists except for God's inserting Himself into the natural world, which scripture claims. The supernatural world is outside the testable realm, and therefore does not require physical evidence to exist. This sounds dumb, and I'm not trying to pull a "it can't be tested, so it doesn't follow the same rules, ha!" on you- perhaps I can put it in another way. Since the Supernatural World is outside/above the experience of the natural, the existence of natural processes and science in no way discredit or disprove the supernatural. These things simply explain the mediums the supernatural uses to order how the natural world works. Phew. That paragraph was a word labyrinth. Haha.
I hope this is misspoken or an error of syntax because the "embracing ignorance" phrase was applied to theists. I am not a theist so, no, you are correct, I do not actually do this. I do not embrace the areas of our ignorance. I strive to eliminate them.
And yet, areas of ignorance do exist. This is fact. So, until humanity has eliminated every area of ignorance, there is still valid reason and room for me to argue that God may, indeed, exist. The believer may depend on gaps in our ignorance, but I would argue that depending on knowledge gaps is just as valid as depending on knowledge, as I believe is your perspective (correct me if I am mistaken).
If we knew everything, there wouldn't be a debate. It is as simple as that my friend. Fact is, humanity does not have all the answers. We probably never will.
Correction. A heavy preponderance of evidence leads to this conclusion. It is hardly "presupposed". Theism is fantasy. The archives of this forum are chuck full of theism's denials of observed facts and the expressions of beliefs to which there are no logical steps from reality.
Theism. Belief, not just without evidence, but contrary to evidence. Fantasy.
Sure it's presupposed. It is your a priori, something you decided was true before we began this conversation. Anything assumed to be true, without demonstrating its truth in this forum at this time, is most definitely a priori. Now this is not to say that you are not correct. Perhaps you are. But to say something like "Theism is fantasy" is most definitely a presupposition, at least here, now, in this thread. The same could be said for me as well.
I disagree with your definition of theism. As I have demonstrated (and GDR was attempting to speak to earlier), theism is not belief contrary to evidence. Evidence simply corroborates how my belief works. God is not the lightning or the big boom that comes afterward. But God did set up the process for lightning to occur. In this way, knowledge informs my belief. But therein lies my a priori. "God exists." I am aware of this
Do you even know you have proven my point? If our views on theism agree that it embraces the darkness rather than the light, that it embraces the mystery rather than the knowledge, that to sustain the theism you must point to the gaps in our knowledge, must point to those areas of our ignorance, in order to point to your deity, if we agree on this then why the push back?
There is no contention here. As I said in my post above, and as you have so eloquently written in yours, theism is dependent on the darkness of ignorance to sustain itself.
Sure. But this isn't all about me. Or theism. It's about all of us. I may not like it, but from a strictly knowledge based perspective there is merit to what you are proposing. You have done a pretty great job of evading my question though . But that's ok. Let's reshape it.
Do you have enough faith in what we know, to accept the possibility that there is room for God within what we do not?
quote:
... because science uncovers the process does not mean it has uncovered the agency ...
in which to sustain the hope that some deity is there.
And for you, you would ignore the gaps in our knowledge in order to sustain the hope that some deity is not there.
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2014 11:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2014 7:53 AM Raphael has replied
 Message 169 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2014 10:30 PM Raphael has replied
 Message 185 by Taq, posted 04-10-2014 6:11 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 262 (723772)
04-08-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Raphael
04-08-2014 2:15 AM


"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Raph writes:
You have stated that the reason religions developed was simply because of ignorance. Perhaps I need some clarification?
I think you clarified for yourself.
Raph writes:
So, until humanity has eliminated every area of ignorance, there is still valid reason and room for me to argue that God may, indeed, exist.
On one hand you question the idea that religious beliefs are founded on ignorance and on the other you brazenly declare that as long as there are gaps in our knowledge (AKA areas of ignorance) it is justifiable to insert God into them.
You've answered your own point.
Raph writes:
And for you, you would ignore the gaps in our knowledge in order to sustain the hope that some deity is not there.
No. Not at all. I just think that after the relentless failure of religion to find God in any of the gaps it has previously proclaimed God to exist in there is little reason to think any of the current proclamations are likely to be any more successful.
As Einstein said - "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Raphael, posted 04-08-2014 2:15 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Raphael, posted 04-09-2014 1:24 AM Straggler has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 262 (723779)
04-08-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Raphael
04-06-2014 8:02 PM


Teapot
I do not believe you have presented an accurate comparison, my friend. I understand there may be some satire in your words, but I don't really understand.
An accurate comparison would be if ancient writings about this teapot existed, writing about real places and real people, and these writings made claims that the teapot existed. The collections of writings would not have been written by some committee somewhere, or group of people, but a simple collection of letters written by different people claiming to be eye-witnesses to the teapot, all at different times, all corroborating the same story. Not only would these writings make outrageous claims, (like a teapot orbiting jupiter) but there would have to be hundreds of times as many more of these ancient manuscripts describing said teapot as there are describing mainstream, accepted as true historical characters and events. An entire demographic of the world would form an ideology around the testimonies of the teapot, corroborating the ideology with subjective personal experiences. And despite thousands of years of time, the same writings would remain unchanged, claiming the same things, making the same challenges.
Then and only then would that be an accurate comparison.
As you wish. In that case we would note that:
* Copying something out lots of times doesn't make it any truer.
* Lots of people believing a thing doesn't make it any truer.
* If you write down anything no matter how false, the thing you've written won't change, because no document spontaneously rewrites itself.
And then we would ask if there's any actual evidence for a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Raphael, posted 04-06-2014 8:02 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024