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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 106 of 310 (486077)
10-15-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:13 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Huh? What do you mean comes from? How did the religious texts get the idea of god if the idea of god had to come from the religious texts? Es imposíble!
Originally yes, it was men who came up with gods. Men wrote the religious texts, long ago, and currently God is found in these texts. Thats what I meant by comes from. If we didn't have these concepts of God, and you had your spiritual experience, then it would just be an experience. Perhaps supernatural, but how does that experience give validity to the Gods of the scriptures?
I can accept that people have spiritual experiences, even supernatural experiences, but to say that because one has these experiences now the concepts of Gods put forth by the different religons is plausable seems like a culturally influenced opinion. No es imposible de entender, si?
"It makes you realize that everything you've learned is, in fact, learned and not necessarily true."
That includes your rejection of the supernatural.
And your acceptance as well. You make a good point though. But by what measure then do we consider something factual, or is the whole idea of facts just a human concept?
"These experiences" led to the realization that there's more to the universe than the natural. And it really was like a realization.
It's still a subjective interpretation of the experience. Subjective experiences cannot be verified so to you there is more to the universe than the natural, subjectively, but objectively there is only the natural.
Realizing that the supernatural does indeed exist then allows for the exploration of the religious beliefs as possible truths.
Realizing that the supernatural indeed exist? Or interpreting the experience to be supernatural and have faith that it exists?
It seems to me that once one attributes the experiences to fit religous concepts then one is just being lead by cultural influences. Im not arguing that you didn't have a spiritual experience, I too have had them, but why Christianity, why Jesus, or Allah (I know you didn't specifically do this but many do)...why not just the experiences and accept it as such?
You however, seem to be describing a Buddist type of enlightenment, thats a pretty cool experience.
The first step is realizing that philisophical naturalism doesn't see everything.
What else is there to see? Sure you can experience many things, and subjectively interpret them any which way you see fit, but outside of your personal subjective interpretation the experience doesn't amount to empirical evidence. It is true to you, but not true by objective standards.
You trust the people who tell you not to trust the people who put the NT together? What about the people that tell you not to trust the people who tell you not to trust the people who put the NT together?
Tu chez

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2008 11:33 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 310 (486080)
10-15-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
10-15-2008 11:44 AM


Re: Answers
I understand that at the moment science has no evidence for anything prior to T=10-43. I know there are those trying to find evidence. But since that was a time the temperature was a trillion degrees what evidence could still exist.
You do understand that the LHC reproduces the exact same conditions, right?
However, this is off topic.
Concerning your "cosmological models (aka factual evidence)". I would like to see some of those facts discussed.
It is off topic, but I'd love to discuss it in another thread. However, I have read all of the previous threads on this subject and can tell you, from my limited understanding of physics,(im no cavediver or son goku), that you are very far from understanding what is being explained. Any further attempt to explain it to you seems hopeless, but if you'd like to start a thread I'll be there.
The reason I asked the question was because you had said, "but if factual evidence is required for the origin of the universe," concerning my faith based evidence.
So when it comes to factual evidence of the origin of the universe where is science's evidence?
Ok. Last attempt. Factual evidence IS required, currently there is NONE for the origin of the universe. It is currently a factual unknown. You said "unknown to who?" Which I agree with you that YOU have your faith based belief of how the universe came to be, God. I got that. But thats not factual, thats faith based. We clear?
Lets stay on a level playing field don't require more of faith than you do of science.
Science does not need to be taken on faith because science does not claim anything as fact that does not have objective evidence to support it. If you are not familiar with the evidence, or have a layman understanding that you feel is good enough to interprete evidence that is far beyond your level of comprehension, then you are not going to agree with certain things, but that does not make those things any less valid to those who do understand it.
This does not require faith, it requires proper study, its all objective evidence that science claims as fact so if anyone is not satisfied feel free to disprove it. Can we do this to your Bible?
No my understanding of science does not interfere with my religious beliefs.
Your understanding of science disagrees with my religious beliefs.
Agreed.
This is a specific person that has met certain requirements, that make them a son or daughter of God.
And how does that translate to the person being right? If we are examining the evidence, what evidence would you provide other than 'Have faith that these scriptures are right"?
The OP is clear, how do we know that the God Hypothesis is even a valid hypothesis?
If it can only be taken on faith, then how is that even a hypothesis? Because you were able to postulate it? Then we go back to the 'Unicorn Hypothesis' being just as valid of a hypothesis than God.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2008 11:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by dogrelata, posted 10-17-2008 6:51 AM onifre has replied
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 7:42 PM onifre has replied

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


(1)
Message 108 of 310 (486082)
10-15-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
I agree that faith alone has no bearing on the veracity of the conclusion.
Then what role does faith have in drawing conclusions? If any?
You seem to be saying that faith is not enough and that empirical evidence is not enough. So on what basis exactly do you draw conclusions?
From the knowledge that we have outside of the conclusions.
"Knowledge outside of conclusions"? What knowledge? can you give an example of this "knowledge" that is neither founded in faith nor empirical in basis?
How we feel about the absurdity of the claim versus the effect of believing the claim
This just amounts to: "Whatever anyone thinks is true is actually true. Unless I either think it isn't true or I decide that I don't like the results of it being true". Which obviously gets no-one anywhere regarding any sort of "knowledge" worth having. In fact it just leads to unresolvable dispute as to what actually is true and what is not. So on the basis of not liking the results of this subjective conclusion I subjectively refute your conclsuion as false. Do you see the problem?
To try to figure out what really is going on here.
Lets examine your example as a case in point:
Say you saw a ghost. It appeared, said hello, and then disappeared
"Saw" as in received reflected or radiated electromagnetic radiation within the visible wavelength into my eyes? Or "imagined" as in did not actually physically "see" except in my "mind's eye"? Is it possible to distinguish between the two?
In some situations very probably not. But do you take everything you imagine or dream to actually exist? Is every image within your minds eye equally valid? On what basis do you decide which to claim as real and which to disregard as mere figments of your imagination? Why is the ghost more likely to be real than a ghost experienced in a dream?
Your ghost example "seems" more empirical and therefore seems more "real" than a mere dream experienced while you are asleep. But if empiricism is not the basis on which you consider such things to be valid then why does this matter? Your example defies your own argument!!
If empiricism, or in this case the appearance of empiricism, is unimportant why do you put any more stock in your ghost example than images within a dream?
To immediately disregard this as impossible because you don't want to abandon your principles would result in a great loss of a potential for extraordinary knowledge.
I could say the same to you about every dream that you have ever had or everything that you have ever imagined and disregarded as imposible or absurd. The only difference with your ghost example is a superfiacial level of empirical realism. A form of realism which you say is not the basis on which such judgements are made anyway.
This is inconsistent.
To employ empirical principles against a being that can be visible or not at will would ultimately fail depending on the will of the being. This inability to empirically detect the being doesn't mean the being does not exist or only exists in your head.
It is you that is using an example that relies on it's superficially empirical nature to give it any credence at all.
Why do you not ask the same question about me having dreamed about a ghost who says hello and then disappears just before I wake up? Why does this example appear to be less relevant to your argument? I'll tell you - Because your argument relies on the unconscious assumption that empirical knowledge is the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made. Deep down you actually know this to be true and your chosen example unconsciouslesly demonstrates this.
You can "close your eyes" towards the existence of the ghost and remain internally consistant in your empirical methods, but that doesn't change if the ghost really exists or not.
Why do you "open your eyes" to the superficially empirical appearance of a ghost but choose to "close your eyes" to the various other imaginings that occurs to you whilst awake or asleep?
Now, we're not going ot get to the point where the existence of the ghost has been empirically verified, but you can come to a subjective conclusion that you accept the existence of ghosts.
Hmmm. A subjective conclusion that would appear to have been made as a result of a superficially empirical but probably unverifiable experience.
You really need to explain on what basis you differentiate between the subjective experiences that you rely upon and the subjective imaginings that you do not.
If it is not greater approximation to empirical experience then on what basis is a ghost of the type you describe any more or less real than a ghost that I imagine as part of a conscious daydream?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2008 11:39 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 109 of 310 (486083)
10-15-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
10-15-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Answers
The Word of God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Speaks to you directly does he? Can anyone else hear him when he does that?
To be able to decide the validity of my conclusions wouldn't you need to know everything those conclusions are based on?
Not really. You have given a pretty decent indication and it is as much about what they are not based on as what they are.
My hearing Dr. would disagree with you.
If your hearing doctor has a problem with the concept of sound then I would suggest that you need a new hearing doctor?
I understand this to say anyone that believes their dogma as much as I do mine, is equal to mine.
I agree.
Just because I believe something that does not make it right.
Just because you or anyone else believes something that does not make it right.
Not all points of view are equal. Some conclusions have had the most reliable methods, tests and examinations known to man applied to them and have still come out unscathed. Some ideas have had such tests applied to them and come out in shreds. And yet other ideas have never been tested or resist such tests for fear of being found wanting.
No not all points of view are equal and tellingly it is usually those with the obviously inferior position that make the claim that they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2008 4:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JungEinstein
Junior Member (Idle past 5638 days)
Posts: 8
From: Tampa Bay, US
Joined: 10-12-2008


Message 110 of 310 (486089)
10-15-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Straggler
10-15-2008 10:11 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
PaulK writes:
And in both cases intuition and imagination only aid the evidence-based and logical methods of discovering the truth. So your assertion here is really off the point.
I'm suggesting that evidence-based and logical methods are also only aids to discovering truth. If Reality is an iceberg, science's requirement of empirical evidence does a triumphant job at explaining the reality of the tip. But by imposed constraints on what are valid means of discovery, science doesn't consider (yet?) the bigger picture. My concern is that human objectivity and the scientific method will serve to establish the reality of only the “tip of the iceberg”.
If you could show an example of someone who discovered the quantum world through faith, before the evidence became available to our eyes you would maybe have a point.
That is my point. No one discovered the quantum world through faith. Faith would have required revealed knowledge of quantum physics at a time before people developed the instruments to probe it. I used quantum physics to illustrate how it’s possible to find evidence of things not seen.
Straggler writes:
If two opposing and mutually exclusive "facts" are derived from faith based subjective "knowledge" alone...
If faith alone is all that is required for a conclusion to be considered evidenced...
I didn't say faith alone is required. The Bible doesn't say faith alone is required either. And neither is faith purely subjective. Faith must be substantiated. (Rom 10:17; Jam 2:24) If you find faith that is unsubstantiated, you will hear of things like delusions and pixies. This is blind faith.
If we accept your faith as evidence then we must also accept anything else anyone else has equal faith in as being equally evidenced.
Not all faith is equally evidenced. Some faith is supplemented by objective evidence. This is true faith.
PaulK writes:
So where is the rational basis for considering "faith" to be "evidence"?
Let me be clear about my position on faith. As I said, faith is a type of evidence. It's only slightly equivalent to scientific evidence. If anything, faith is closer in substance to theory, but even this is a poor analogy. Faith is similar to theory in that it requires support from objective reality, but it's also similar to evidence in that it gives support to non-objective reality. Faith is required for experience and knowledge because there's an experiential and epistemological gap between the physical and spiritual domains. (This "gap" has a Scriptural explanation). Faith attempts to bridge that gap by providing a link from the physical to the non-physical. It's aim is to provide a complete picture of human reality, one that objective reality alone cannot give.
Objective evidence that supports or substantiates faith includes not only natural phenomena, but the Bible as well. This, of course, leads to other questions and arguments, as does the suggestion of a "spiritual domain". But I just wanted to clarify the meaning of faith as I use the term. I don't know how people in world religions define it, or how individuals of personal religion define it. I can only speak to the meaning of faith as it's used in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 10:11 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 8:10 PM JungEinstein has replied
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2008 1:32 AM JungEinstein has not replied

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


(1)
Message 111 of 310 (486090)
10-15-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by JungEinstein
10-15-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
I have demonstrated to you that faith itself is not a form of evidence and that it should thus be disregarded as such.
Not all faith is equally evidenced. Some faith is supplemented by objective evidence. This is true faith.
Faith based on objective empirical evidence is true faith....? What? Is that not the very antithesis of the whole concept of faith?
"If you show me evidence I'll have faith"
Let me be clear about my position on faith. As I said, faith is a type of evidence. It's only slightly equivalent to scientific evidence. If anything, faith is closer in substance to theory, but even this is a poor analogy. Faith is similar to theory in that it requires support from objective reality, but it's also similar to evidence in that it gives support to non-objective reality. Faith is required for experience and knowledge because there's an experiential and epistemological gap between the physical and spiritual domains. (This "gap" has a Scriptural explanation). Faith attempts to bridge that gap by providing a link from the physical to the non-physical. It's aim is to provide a complete picture of human reality, one that objective reality alone cannot give.
Frankly this is a pile of very confused and hairy old bollocks.
Welcome to EvC by the way
You seem to be saying that where objective evidence supports your beliefs then that objective evidence is to be relied upon. But where objective evidence is either absent or contradictory to your beliefs then such evidence is unnecessary and/or inferior to faith as a means of making conclusions. So you have your beliefs and whatever evidence you can define as evidence in support of those beliefs is to be considered valid. This is not the strongest of positions........
To decide what one thinks and then seek only evidence to support that view is the very antithesis of scientific, or for that matter reliable, investigation.
It is not often that someone manages to reverse the meanings of both faith and science based investigation in the space of a single post!!!!
Objective evidence that supports or substantiates faith includes not only natural phenomena, but the Bible as well. This, of course, leads to other questions and arguments, as does the suggestion of a "spiritual domain". But I just wanted to clarify the meaning of faith as I use the term. I don't know how people in world religions define it, or how individuals of personal religion define it. I can only speak to the meaning of faith as it's used in the Bible.
Why the bible? Why not any other holy book? Or even other random theories by people like Brendatucker (look her and her thread up on EvC if interested)
All are equally uncorroborated. But lets start a new thread or join an existing one if you want to discuss the veracity of the bible itself as that is not really the topic here.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JungEinstein, posted 10-15-2008 7:49 PM JungEinstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by JungEinstein, posted 10-19-2008 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 310 (486105)
10-16-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JungEinstein
10-15-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
quote:
I'm suggesting that evidence-based and logical methods are also only aids to discovering truth. If Reality is an iceberg, science's requirement of empirical evidence does a triumphant job at explaining the reality of the tip. But by imposed constraints on what are valid means of discovery, science doesn't consider (yet?) the bigger picture. My concern is that human objectivity and the scientific method will serve to establish the reality of only the “tip of the iceberg”.
Of course, this is Catholic Scientist's argument - but it begs the question of whether faith should be considered evidence. If all faith can do is delude you into thinking that you know things which you do not know then it is worthless for finding the truth. And something that a rational person - theist or not - should reject.
quote:
That is my point. No one discovered the quantum world through faith. Faith would have required revealed knowledge of quantum physics at a time before people developed the instruments to probe it. I used quantum physics to illustrate how it’s possible to find evidence of things not seen.
Then your point does not address the issue of whether faith is evidence.
quote:
Let me be clear about my position on faith. As I said, faith is a type of evidence. It's only slightly equivalent to scientific evidence. If anything, faith is closer in substance to theory, but even this is a poor analogy. Faith is similar to theory in that it requires support from objective reality, but it's also similar to evidence in that it gives support to non-objective reality. Faith is required for experience and knowledge because there's an experiential and epistemological gap between the physical and spiritual domains. (This "gap" has a Scriptural explanation). Faith attempts to bridge that gap by providing a link from the physical to the non-physical. It's aim is to provide a complete picture of human reality, one that objective reality alone cannot give.
All you are offering is assertions with no support. It seems that you have blind faith in faith.
quote:
Objective evidence that supports or substantiates faith includes not only natural phenomena, but the Bible as well. This, of course, leads to other questions and arguments, as does the suggestion of a "spiritual domain". But I just wanted to clarify the meaning of faith as I use the term. I don't know how people in world religions define it, or how individuals of personal religion define it. I can only speak to the meaning of faith as it's used in the Bible.
Again this is mere assertion, without any of the so-called objective evidence. I asked for the rational basis for your claim that faith is evidence. YOu haven't offered one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JungEinstein, posted 10-15-2008 7:49 PM JungEinstein has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 113 of 310 (486113)
10-16-2008 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
10-15-2008 7:20 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
From PaulK
Yet nobody arguing that faith should be taken as a "way of knowing" seems to even try. Instead we get Bible quotes, as if that settled the issue.
agreed , and that is the issue .. for any one to get faith taken as evidence they need to be perpare to confount the root cause of that faith .. and as you point out ...its very quiet out there .....
from Parasomnium
P1: Faith is caused by X;
P2: Some people have faith;
C: Therefore, X exists.
Thus, we are none the wiser about the nature of X. That faith has a cause says absolutely nothing about the nature of the cause, which is what you nevertheless seem to imply. In other words: of course faith has a cause, but I don't think it is the cause that you would like it to be.
not quite , as you need to define X and show the causal link ..thus you uncover something about X .. we are not abandoning scientific rigor ..no unsurrported statements
so..
P1 its can be shown that faith is caused by X
P2 its can be measured that somepeople have faith induced by X
C X exsists
and this is my point .. those who want faith taken as evidence only need to show this cause and how it gives rise to faith ...
just as all quoters of science can show that they can have faith in the validity of a scientific theory .. by showing the methods and rules under which the theory was drawn up ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2008 7:20 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Parasomnium, posted 10-16-2008 7:26 AM ikabod has replied
 Message 115 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2008 7:36 AM ikabod has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 114 of 310 (486123)
10-16-2008 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ikabod
10-16-2008 3:45 AM


Put your money where your mouth is
ikabod writes:
not quite , as you need to define X and show the causal link
You said that faith implies the existence of the cause of that faith. You think God is the cause of faith - you never said so, but it was clear from the context that you do. So, in effect you are saying that faith is evidence for God, forgetting that faith can also be induced by madness for instance. So you don't practice what you preach, because you do not show why only God can be the cause of faith.
those who want faith taken as evidence only need to show this cause and how it gives rise to faith ...
OK, show me the cause. Show me God.
just as all quoters of science can show that they can have faith in the validity of a scientific theory .. by showing the methods and rules under which the theory was drawn up ...
While you're at it, show me your methods too.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ikabod, posted 10-16-2008 3:45 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ikabod, posted 10-17-2008 5:35 AM Parasomnium has not replied

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


(1)
Message 115 of 310 (486125)
10-16-2008 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ikabod
10-16-2008 3:45 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
If someone has complete faith and conviction in the notion that God not only exists but also wants him to strap some explosives to himself and blow up a busy airport....
Is that evidence for both the existence of God and the wishes that God has regarding the fate of that individual?
The conviction and faith of the individual is evident. What is the causee of this faith? If faith is evidence what is this faith evidence of exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ikabod, posted 10-16-2008 3:45 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ikabod, posted 10-17-2008 5:48 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 116 of 310 (486139)
10-16-2008 11:11 AM


I am with the atheists on faith, faith is just another product of the environment IMO. So is spirituality. But I don't see any reason to link the veracity of faith to whether the universe was created by a creator or by chance.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 310 (486140)
10-16-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by onifre
10-15-2008 6:03 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Originally yes, it was men who came up with gods. Men wrote the religious texts, long ago, and currently God is found in these texts. Thats what I meant by comes from.
I see, but gods must come from something else too.
If we didn't have these concepts of God, and you had your spiritual experience, then it would just be an experience. Perhaps supernatural, but how does that experience give validity to the Gods of the scriptures?
I'm not claiming it does. Not all on its own.
I can accept that people have spiritual experiences, even supernatural experiences, but to say that because one has these experiences now the concepts of Gods put forth by the different religons is plausable seems like a culturally influenced opinion.
The spiritual experience gets you out of philosophical naturalism. That's the first step. You can't hold philosophical naturalism and also be religious.
With the conviction that philosophical naturalism is limited, you can then move on towards the concepts of Gods put forth by the different religions. Its not If P then Q, there's steps in between.
But by what measure then do we consider something factual, or is the whole idea of facts just a human concept?
I think that factuality exists outside of the human concept and that we humans cannot get to absolutely factual. We can get so damn close that it fits all practical purposes though. And we measure that with objective empirical evidence. The problem is that not every fact can be identified as the method is limited in that which it can investigate.
"These experiences" led to the realization that there's more to the universe than the natural. And it really was like a realization.
It's still a subjective interpretation of the experience.
Well, everything becomes subjective at some point, even objective evidence.
Subjective experiences cannot be verified so to you there is more to the universe than the natural, subjectively, but objectively there is only the natural.
That statement is unfounded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Realizing that the supernatural does indeed exist then allows for the exploration of the religious beliefs as possible truths.
Realizing that the supernatural indeed exist? Or interpreting the experience to be supernatural and have faith that it exists?
I'm convinced it exists. Whether or not it really does, to me it does so I state it as a matter of fact. I realize its not really though.
It seems to me that once one attributes the experiences to fit religous concepts then one is just being lead by cultural influences. Im not arguing that you didn't have a spiritual experience, I too have had them, but why Christianity, why Jesus, or Allah (I know you didn't specifically do this but many do)...why not just the experiences and accept it as such?
Again, I didn't go from having an experience to concluding Jesus did it. It was a gradual process of realizing, through several experiences, that philosophical naturalism is limited in what it can discover and that there are things to be witnessed that philosophical naturalism denies. Then through another experience I concluded Jesus was responsible for that one. All the others are still in the "it was just an experience" category.
The first step is realizing that philisophical naturalism doesn't see everything.
What else is there to see? Sure you can experience many things, and subjectively interpret them any which way you see fit, but outside of your personal subjective interpretation the experience doesn't amount to empirical evidence. It is true to you, but not true by objective standards.
I agree. But your applying the standard of objectivity to something that isn't objective. It circular reasoning to conclude this way that only the objective is real.
Tu chez
Que?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by onifre, posted 10-15-2008 6:03 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 310 (486142)
10-16-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
10-15-2008 6:35 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
I agree that faith alone has no bearing on the veracity of the conclusion.
Then what role does faith have in drawing conclusions? If any?
The role is in drawing subjective conclusions.
You seem to be saying that faith is not enough and that empirical evidence is not enough. So on what basis exactly do you draw conclusions?
Objective conclusions should rely soley on empirical evidence.
Subjective conclusions would based on both the evidence and your beliefs.
From the knowledge that we have outside of the conclusions.
"Knowledge outside of conclusions"? What knowledge? can you give an example of this "knowledge" that is neither founded in faith nor empirical in basis?
Believing that the supernatural exists comes from "knowledge" of the supernatural. You don't actually "know" it was supernatural but if you're convinced by the subjective evidence then you'd believe it. On the other hand, even empirical evidence doesn't lead to really "knowing". And objective evidence can only be aquired subjectively. Independent empirical evidence adds a lot weight to the claims, but on the subjective side, its not like I'm the only one who has seen a ghost.
How we feel about the absurdity of the claim versus the effect of believing the claim
This just amounts to: "Whatever anyone thinks is true is actually true.
For them, yes, in a subjective sense.
Unless I either think it isn't true or I decide that I don't like the results of it being true". Which obviously gets no-one anywhere regarding any sort of "knowledge" worth having.
I think my "knowledge" of the supernatural is worth having. It doesn't help me at all in the lab, but its useful for philosophy.
In fact it just leads to unresolvable dispute as to what actually is true and what is not. So on the basis of not liking the results of this subjective conclusion I subjectively refute your conclsuion as false. Do you see the problem?
I do. But the dispute is unresolvable in an empirical sense. There is no dispute between those who have been convinced that the supernatural exists.
To try to figure out what really is going on here.
Lets examine your example as a case in point:
Say you saw a ghost. It appeared, said hello, and then disappeared
"Saw" as in received reflected or radiated electromagnetic radiation within the visible wavelength into my eyes? Or "imagined" as in did not actually physically "see" except in my "mind's eye"? Is it possible to distinguish between the two?
I dunno. When the radiation is received by the eye, it sends a signal to the brain that is subjectively interpretated. The same signal to the brain would be indistinguishable from whether or not the eye received it.
If one ghost can control its emission of radiation (objective) and another can send the signal directly to your brain (subjective), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
In some situations very probably not. But do you take everything you imagine or dream to actually exist? Is every image within your minds eye equally valid? On what basis do you decide which to claim as real and which to disregard as mere figments of your imagination? Why is the ghost more likely to be real than a ghost experienced in a dream?
Its a subjective basis. You might be convinced by a dream. You might be convinced by a real ghost. Its up to your subjectivity which one you're convinced by and which one you believe actually exists.
Your ghost example "seems" more empirical and therefore seems more "real" than a mere dream experienced while you are asleep. But if empiricism is not the basis on which you consider such things to be valid then why does this matter? Your example defies your own argument!!
I'd say that empiricism is the basis, but that your subjective beliefs add weight to one or the other.
If empiricism, or in this case the appearance of empiricism, is unimportant why do you put any more stock in your ghost example than images within a dream?
Empiricism is not unimportant, its just not the sole source for what I find convincing.
To immediately disregard this as impossible because you don't want to abandon your principles would result in a great loss of a potential for extraordinary knowledge.
I could say the same to you about every dream that you have ever had or everything that you have ever imagined and disregarded as imposible or absurd. The only difference with your ghost example is a superfiacial level of empirical realism. A form of realism which you say is not the basis on which such judgements are made anyway.
This is inconsistent.
It not the sole basis for the judgement...
To employ empirical principles against a being that can be visible or not at will would ultimately fail depending on the will of the being. This inability to empirically detect the being doesn't mean the being does not exist or only exists in your head.
It is you that is using an example that relies on it's superficially empirical nature to give it any credence at all.
Why do you not ask the same question about me having dreamed about a ghost who says hello and then disappears just before I wake up? Why does this example appear to be less relevant to your argument? I'll tell you - Because your argument relies on the unconscious assumption that empirical knowledge is the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made. Deep down you actually know this to be true and your chosen example unconsciouslesly demonstrates this.
No, it was to demonstrate that empirical knowledge is NOT the only basis on which subjective conclusions can be made. I've agreed that the conclusion are not realiable in the empirical sense, but in the subjective sense they can be convincing.
Why do you "open your eyes" to the superficially empirical appearance of a ghost but choose to "close your eyes" to the various other imaginings that occurs to you whilst awake or asleep?
Because the ghost you see when your awake is objective. it just isn't limited to empirical evidence.
Now, we're not going ot get to the point where the existence of the ghost has been empirically verified, but you can come to a subjective conclusion that you accept the existence of ghosts.
Hmmm. A subjective conclusion that would appear to have been made as a result of a superficially empirical but probably unverifiable experience.
The superficially empirical evidence adds weight to the objectivity of the ghost but it does not prove the objectivity because it is unverifiable. This added weight leads to a subjective conclusion that the ghost was objective.
You really need to explain on what basis you differentiate between the subjective experiences that you rely upon and the subjective imaginings that you do not.
On top of the superficially empirical evidence are the subjective convictions of the observer that lead to the differentiation.
If it is not greater approximation to empirical experience then on what basis is a ghost of the type you describe any more or less real than a ghost that I imagine as part of a conscious daydream?
The basis is the empirical, but it is not the sole basis, the subjective convictions add weight to one conclusion or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 6:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:15 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 119 of 310 (486145)
10-16-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Catholic Scientist writes:
That statement is unfounded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yup, very good point. I think atheists need to keep an open mind. But then they wouldn't be true atheists, would they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2008 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2008 12:20 PM Agobot has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 310 (486150)
10-16-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Agobot
10-16-2008 11:47 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Catholic Scientist writes:
That statement is unfounded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yup, very good point.
You gotta be careful with that one though.
If I hand you an envelope and tell you that there's a dollar in it, how would you determine that there isn't one in there? It would be from the absense of evidence that there is a dollar in there (i.e. its empty). So that absense of evidence would be evidence that the dollar is not in the envelope.
However, this does not prove that there is no dollar. You could have simply not seen it.
I think atheists need to keep an open mind. But then they wouldn't be true atheists, would they?
They could....
You can have an open mind and remain unconvinced of god's existence.
Unless you're talking about people who hold a positive belief that god does not exist...
But nobody really holds that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 11:47 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024