I Know That God Does Not Exist

Part 2 - From Message 2730And what evidence do you have for this? The bible? Sounds like a statement of faith to me. Yah, being non-existent makes it hard to be testable by any method let alone science.Can anyone show the efficacy of any other method? Again, I hear a statement of faith, unless you can physically show us your god using some other non-science method. That would be cool.Can you show your objective knower of truth actually exists, has power and knowledge, and lives in a golden palace in the sky, hates humans but likes putting his children’s pictures on burnt toast? Can you show this? Can you show any part of it?Ok, I’m just being an ass. I’m gonna go get a glass of wine. You mean the crazy woo-woo cults that can believe anything because faith has no limit?I don’t think that’s important at all.What good is a tool that explains everything by explaining nothing? A faith, a belief, can center on anything. The only rules are the creeds of the cults and they are so hopelessly in conflict. Anything, absolutely anything, your heart desires, true or not, actual or not, can be your belief. It’s worthless.Science gives us actual, demonstrable, repeatable, deep understanding of reality. Belief gives us 9/11.Btw, what do you believe on aliens? Almond eyes or slits? The skepticism is always there. It’s built into the framework.There is also the recognition that our models of reality are sooo good, so repetitious, so predictive, that skepticism of the philosophy that produced them is no longer reasonable. Question the specific protocols and the measurement methodologies. Be skeptical of the analysis and the conclusions. And be skeptical that they followed a proper scientific method. The philosophy of science as practiced in this species is open to improvement but no longer warrants skepticism of its power to scope deeper into reality. And with accuracy that improves by orders of magnitude every year.The questions about the power and efficacy of science have been answered and those answers keep coming in book loads of new understand every day. I no longer need to be question my table saw. It is my tool. There is no other toolbox available. At least not one that can actually do anything.Unless you have one? Have you one? Will you show it to me? The superiority of science to model reality IS unprovable. We don’t do proof.The preponderance of the evidence, the hard discernable physical facts, cannot be dismissed. Comparing advances in knowledge, culture, philosophy and human comfort from science with those from faith leaves faith in the dirt. You guys have done nothing but war for 5000 years. All human advancement came from science and science-minded people.There is a reason we exclusively use science when we want to know something. It works. Exceptionally well. History tells us this. The facts cannot be denied. Nothing is true, only evidenced. Ok so the evidence is sometimes so strong we can say with a straight layman’s face that this is true, but that just means it’s way strong science awaiting, but not expecting, anything to change it.Well, I suppose if we kick the dictionary down a few grades we can talk of facts being true as in “the sun came up”. Factual, true, but not on the level of a universal truth, examples of which I can’t recall. Are there any? Because theology has been an intellectual chain of slavery to the human mind and a violent, bloody, war culture in every society. I’m still skeptical that early homo benefited in any major way from superstition, but we are well past that stage in our evolution and we no longer need the violence and the stupid restrictions on thought.It is time for religion to die. Unfortunately, it probably won’t be tonight. There are unknowable things in this universe that are reasonable to ask questions about because they are evidenced by logical extensions of our knowledge base. There are unknowable wild-assed speculations evidenced by personal emotion and incredulity not worth the time to contemplate.The unknowable’s in the realm of the universe are no concern since they are unknowable. For example, anything outside the horizon of the visible universe can never be known to us. There is no use speculating what is there, besides more of what is here. Nothing here can have any effect on anything there and vice versa. We will/can never know. There is no knowledge there to be agnostic about.The wild-assed speculations, like your supernatural superstitions, have nothing in reality that holds them up as intellectually, let alone physically, viable. It’s not an “I don’t know” thing. It’s a “this is worthless” thing. There is no knowledge there to contemplate. There is no knowledge there to be agnostic about.You want to talk about women, ok, agnostic. I never did figure them out. So what else am I supposed to be agnostic about? The stuff I don’t know is legion so there is a whole big bunch of agnostic.But, you may be talking about some other level.So. You believe. Why?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I haven't read ahead in the thread and so may be replying to some of the same arguments as others, but they were too ostentatiously wrong to ignore. Whether or not the scientific method is the *only* path to understanding the real world, it is certainly a very effective and successful one. If you know of any other methods with similarly successful records please let us know what they are. To use an example to make the point, novel coronavirus vaccines were developed and tested using the scientific method. To provide us an example of a better or at least equivalent methodology for gaining knowledge, please describe how it would work for vaccine development. By what method are belief systems like religions tied to reality? You above questioned how we could know the scientific method was superior, but here you provide your own answer: it's superiority over superstition was just so bloody obvious. I'm curious about this "unfounded superstition" you speak of. One suspects that "unfounded superstition" is other people's religion, while "well founded belief" is your religion.But what really matters is your method. What would you use in place of the scientific method to learn about the real world? If you wanted to develop a new vaccine or a new particle collider or new battery technology or new rocket technology or improve upon the standard model, and you were going to use something better than or at least as good as the scientific method, what would that method be? I can't see anyone here objecting to testing the scientific method - why would they, since testing the method is in the spirit of that very method?I think what people are actually pushing back against is your attempt to position the scientific method as not having the remarkable history of success over all other methods that it quite obviously does, as if the jury is somehow still out. It's not. Religion lost the battle of "figuring things out about the real world" centuries ago. Anyone denying science's incredible success is not living in the real world. If not a fellow believer you're at least a fellow traveler with the climate change deniers, the pandemic deniers, the mask effectiveness deniers, the vaccine deniers, the moon landing deniers, the 911 deniers, the fair election deniers, etc. For those with no effective method of establishing what is true about the real world, anything goes. If by "truth discernment" you mean figuring out how the real world works then your arguments are just mumbo-jumbo nonsense. If you truly believe all knowledge is faith then you'll have no problem marching up to your roof and jumping off, since the supposed knowledge that keeping one's feet firmly planted on the ground is safer than launching oneself into the air and falling 20 or 30 feet to the ground is mere faith having no more reality than any other particular thing you care to believe. Again, what do you mean by truths? If you mean things we figure out about how the real world works then while many questions exceed our grasp, at least at present, that doesn't mean they're forever untestable. It's actually difficult to find questions that can't be studied by science. Even the incredibly ambiguous question, "Does Julie really love me?" can be studied by defining terms and criteria. This echos what I just said, and it raises the familiar question, "Why shouldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster be given equal time in Bible study classes?" What method did you use to establish the above knowledge? How does this method's record of success measure up against the scientific method. I'm not sure how to interpret the laugh emoji, but the effectiveness of the scientific method is not "an unprovable faith claim." Untestable beliefs is a pretty good definition of faith. If science isn't objectively telling us things that are likely true about reality then it's a long, lengthy and stunning run of good luck. Aren't you also anti-theist, with one exception?--Percy

Haha, well it is always an honor when Percy jumps into the fray. It seems I have summoned the Grand Wizard himself, or perhaps Anti-Wizard? lol.I'm putting this here as a placeholder. You both have provided really thorough responses and I want to take the proper time and care to respond, all amidst grad work. Apologies if it is a day or so before I can throw it down!Until then,
Raph

Response 2 AZPaul Part 1 (Part 2 to come!) I must clarify and say: I am not anti-science. Science has bettered our lives in a plethora of ways over the past 300 years in particular and that progress should be celebrated! We have not solved all the problems yet but what has been done is remarkable. I am not anti-science, I am merely skeptical of any who would claim to elevate the scientific method as the only epistemological process. Haha, true! Life would not be the same without donuts and ice cream, a tragedy even! I am grateful for the scientists and science of cooking that allows us to create such awesome things! I have no problem with the voice of our collective experts having consensus on something. Again I'm not against science, in fact usually, in my faith circles, I am an advocate for championing science as a vital part of a wholistic faith. I'd even be willing to say "the science rules" if you were to provide nuance on what the science rules over. I simply believe there are truths untestable by the scientific method. That does not mean I hate the method or even disagree with the way it is used. I simply recognize its limitations.I read a handful of the link you posted, interesting stuff, though a lot of it was over my head . Equations were never my strongest subject tbh lol. Send me a link with a chapter of the TANAKH to translate from Hebrew to some workable English though, and I'm your guy haha. I found this quote in particular to be interesting:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

---

Realist theories of scientific progress take truth to be an important goal of inquiry. This view is built into the classical definition of knowledge as justified true belief: if science is a knowledge-seeking activity, then it is also a truth-seeking activity.

---

If we are working from ^this classical epistemological definition, then all knowledge is "justified true belief." The writer above also posits that if the aforementioned is true, science then, is in fact a truth-seeking activity [fundamentally]. You resist this, for some reason. But your contemporaries seem to disagree. I don't have the slightest issue with science being a truth-seeking activity. In fact, I would even advocate it should be one of the primary truth-seeking activities. Just not the only one. And in turn, I understand your motivation to remain with a scientific dogmatism. If science is only one pathway to knowledge of reality than the certainty you had counted on might be in question. Your unbending argument, ironically, reminds me greatly of conversations I have had with religious fundamentalists. We are more like the other side than we realize But what a gift it is to experience uncertainty, my friend. What a gift it is to not have to have all the answers. What a gift it is to rest in the mystery. I am on board with using tools that actually give accurate results. The Scriptures though, contend that since Truth is totally free it is not a tool, or a process like the scientific method to be controlled. Truth is not beholden to anyone, though Truth loves everyone. (Which, in fact, is the mystery of the gospel.) Truth reveals Himself on His own terms and speaks to people answers to questions outside the scope of what science deals with, the questions we all ask on a fundamental human level. Do you matter? Is love real? Will suffering/war/genocide/child abuse/rape/starvation end? Does justice exist? To all these questions the answer from Truth is "yes."You matter, Paul. You are sacred and your life and the lives of your family and parents and children are holy and objectively divinely valued. Love is real, and love wins in the end. Suffering and injustice is a human creation, and yet it will come to an end. Two things in response. First, really? What does it fail at? Perhaps you are looking to it for the wrong things. Perhaps some religious person even told you to ask it the wrong questions. And so I disagree. I think, as we have said before, words matter. Sometimes we ask the right source the wrong questions. Sometimes we ask the wrong source the right questions. Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is not the place to find the answer to the question "What is the recipe for the perfect cheese cake?" The Boy Who Lived doesn't really care about cheesecake (though I bet Daniel Radclife does! Maybe lol).In the same way, the Scriptures are not the place to ask "What is the PH of the water in cat urine?" It doesn't care about that question. Same goes with the question "Was the world created in seven literal days?" The book of Genesis, in response, says "I don't care about that question." It has other questions it is answering. It gets to decide what questions it cares about, not you or me. So really, the task for us is to become better discerners of which questions which sources care about, and ask those sources those questions.This is difficult, because it requires humility and listening and acknowledging...we don't have all the answers. Nobody does.Second, I think that statement is a pretty clear example of cultural privilege. With respect, but what an incredibly culturally arrogant and Western-centric thing to claim. The majority of people in the world experience the reality of their faiths on a daily basis, in vivid reality, and would tell you so. The fact that you dismiss what they experience as false shows again, your epistemological bias and arrogant preference for the positions of your own tribe - ironically the thing you accuse religious people of. You only have this perspective because of your holding culture, not because of its objective truth. Not trying to slander or name-call, just trying to be direct and honest. It seems your own source disagrees with you though. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, their writers define science as "a truth-seeking activity," if truth/knowledge is defined as "justified true belief." I hear you though, I may have misspoke.So, while science may not be interested in "universal truth," it is certainly interested in the progressive pursuit of understanding more "justifiably true things." If you are willing to concede this, then I agree with it! I am just also arguing that science is axiologically limited. It helps us know true things, just not all of the true things. Sure, but you only trust it based on belief, however justified. As I mentioned earlier, you have no way to discern whether this is a simulation or even if you are dreaming currently. You cannot observe your own brain function, and you only have untestable "markers" you assume will tell you you are dreaming. Anyway. Perhaps I spoke too hyperbolically.Perhaps a statement that more accurately represents my view is: "there are unproveable faith gaps at the foundation of all worldviews and epistemological frameworks." Objective reality may exist, somewhere, but even with the scientific method you have no way of discerning what is is or if this is it. I would be equally skeptical of a religious person claiming to know for certain what objective reality is. However I am not as invested in this path of argumentation tbh haha, this is not really my argument. We agree here! As long as we recognize your view of reality is clearly skewed to favor a specific epistemological framework that you believe, by faith, is able to tell you all the accurate information. I can conceive of it, I just do not think you recognize the unprovable faith gap beneath your entire framework (as there is within my own). What I am arguing is perhaps deeper than you recognize.For clarity, I’m arguing that built within the presuppositions of the scientific framework itself is the assumption that the method has all the tools required for gathering information about knowledge. You may rebut this, but you have been dismissing any truths not discovered by this process as “not reality.” Therefore, you are choosing to believe, by faith, whether you realize it or not, that the process has all the epistemological tools required for understanding reality, when, in reality (lol), this is not objectively true.In rebuttal to your thoughts on faith, faith actually has nothing to do with emotions or feelings. The Scriptures would contend that faith is based (in part) on what it calls revelation; that is, evidence that reveals itself to you without your control. Surely evidence, no matter its source, would be considered by one claiming to be a scientist? Like the answers to the questions above. Science has an epistemological scope that plenty of scientists recognize. This is really the core of my argument. Some truths science does not bother concerning itself with. That's ok, because the field of Faith does have answer for the deeper, more mystical, fundamentally human questions we all ask. I’m sorry to hear about your mom. Don’t know what I would do.On a lighter note, look who is basing reality on fleeting emotions now Emotions are demonstrable products of human existence, I am in agreement there. "Oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin in response to physical stimuli" may equate to "human connection" but that's really as far as you could go. This is because science does not care about the questions "is love real?" or "does love matter?" Science does not have the tools to answer these questions. This is the limit of using "the method" as your only epistemological tool. What about those who do not experience this chemical reaction, but still claim to love? Or those impaired by mental illness and chemical imbalances like depression or multiple-personalities. Is their love objectively false? You type this, but I am willing to bet you do not live like it. In reality, you live in deep connection and love with people you are close to, and you care about them, without stopping to reduce your own emotions into chemistry. In this sense, your ideas and the reality of the way (I am again willing to bet) you live your life are in dissonance. In reality, connection matters, love matters, and you matter, and you live as if all are true.Continued in part 2 tomorrow! Edited by Raphael, : Cleanup, grammar, some code issues, formatting

Edited by Raphael, : More cleanup, I missed a few!

Edited by Raphael, : One final edit for finishing touches (yes I’m a bit of a perfectionist whose asking? lol

Edited by Raphael, : Finally done

I think that this is rather vague and in places confused.This paragraph is particularly bad: First, this confuses methods of seeking the truth with the truth itself. The discipline applies to the methods and is the reason why the scientific method is an effective tool. You cannot deny the fallibility of human beings, which makes the discipline necessary. Yet, you cast discipline aside to claim a special relationship with “Truth” which you claim gives you truthful answers to questions which we cannot otherwise find reliable answers to.I think it is perfectly legitimate to reject such claims in the absence of good reasons to think otherwise. Claims of revelation are clearly not trustworthy. It is far from clear that even personal experiences of “revelation” are what they appear to be or provide reliable information. In effect you are asking that beliefs you favour be given a pass on the tests and checks - and on fallacious grounds.This point is also dubious: Is it really true that the way that people “experience the reality of their faiths” is at odds with AZPaul’s assertions? Even if we restrict it to the realm of religious belief there are uncomfortable questions. Do some experience that Jesus is the literal Son of God and others that Jesus is only a human prophet - that God cannot have a literal son? Either this experienced “truth” is severely restricted in scope, or it is so subjective that the same claim can be both true and a blasphemous falsehood. Neither option seems likely to be helpful to you.The question of whether we live in a simulation is equally unhelpful to you. There are sound pragmatic reasons for ignoring it in most respects and its unfalsifiability is a red flag. Intellectual acceptance of the possibility is about all it deserves. Insisting that there is any failure or a reliance on anything akin to religious faith in refusing to grant it any more than that is unjustified.

Take your time. There is other life out there we all need to live.And I know the re-read ad infinitum syndrome. I suffer its effects as well.

Don't feel the need to reply to everyone or every message - you'll just end up repeating yourself a lot. AZPaul3 and I raised a lot of the same points. What do you mean by epistemology? Knowledge about God and the disposition of souls? Or knowledge about the real world? If the latter then if you have a meaningful alternative to the scientific method please tell us what it is. But what about your alternative epistemology? Does it work for cooking? Reality. The natural world. The universe. What are these truths that you speak of? Are these objective truths, i.e., the same truth for everyone, or does this truth vary from one person to the next? Do you have any limitations in mind beyond being limited to the real world? What are these other pathways to knowledge? Whatever they are, do they lead to different answers than science, which would lead us to question our confidence in the scientific method?If these other methods are merely hypothesized and as yet unknown and undiscovered then your casting of doubt on science is without justification. You're drawing a false equivalence. There are not multiple gas laws, resistance/current/voltage laws and theories of relativity, but there are many, many religious beliefs. Our confidence in Boyle's Law, Ohm's law and Einsteinian relativity derives from the scientific method: experiment, observation, theorizing, then repeat, replicate and so forth. Your confidence in your religious beliefs stems from...what? On an objective methodologically established level. You're looking at having some level of confidence in our scientific knowledge and mistaking it for certainty. A key quality of scientific knowledge is tentativity. This means our studies can improve our confidence but never achieve certainty.There *is* one thing we're very certain of: the scientific method is the best method found so far for ferreting out what is likely true about the real world. Scripture is revealed knowledge, not a method of gaining knowledge. If all you're saying is that science shouldn't be applied to religious questions then I think most of us would agree with you. You should be telling the creationists not to apply science to the Bible, not us. Yes, we know, but they'd all be different truths, wouldn't they, because religious beliefs have no objective method for establishing their truth. Hence the many religions and sects. Do you think all religious beliefs are true? At least some of them contradict each other, so it's impossible that they're all true. What is your method for establishing which religious beliefs are true. Scientific Progress (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) discusses a number of different views of scientific philosophy and you're narrowly focused on just the one described in section 3.4. The article does address tentativity when it mentions Popper's falsification and testability and so forth. We're still wondering about the method you're using to establish these other true things. You're playing a semantic game with the word "belief." When we say we believe a theory we mean we accept it based upon experiment, observation, replication and peer review. A theory is not a belief in any sense resembling a religious belief. If you think it is then I again suggest the experiment of jumping off a roof and testing whether gravity truly has any objective reality, as compared to what you think is the objective reality of, say, the sanctity of the soul. The price of ignoring one is tangible, the other not so much. I'm not myself interested in discussions of the nature of existence and whether it's real or not. Question objective reality if you like, but I'll bet many of the devoutly religious think the objects of their religious beliefs have objective reality. You don't have an epistemological framework, at least not one you've described for us yet. There are severe consequences for ignoring objective reality. What are the consequences of ignoring this "deeper" whatever it is? No one has given you any basis for saying this. We've instead talked about tentativity and our inability to achieve complete knowledge. No one has said anything like this. Rebuttal requires a bit more than making up stories about what other people believe. Now scripture is evidence? Which scripture? Can I guess which one? What is the method by which the veracity of scripture on topics like God and angels and souls and heaven has been demonstrated? Isn't the true situation that scripture has a wide range of interpretations, not a single objective truth? Sure, who would argue with that. Faith is about the spiritual, science is about objective reality.--Percy

A week is long enough. I want to respond without waiting for your second half.If things change, as they inevitably will, then we will address those later. I haven’t much choice. There doesn’t seem to be any other “evidence” process, TRVTH process, knowledge or reality process that matches science. If I had a sharper tool I’d use it.Maybe you’ll show me one? Hmm. Reasonable. If we can lose the faith part but keep the holistic physics we may have something here. What limitations? Science rules over everything. You know. Life, the universe and everything. There is nothing that cannot be science-ed. Did I just make a new word? I know. Philosophers are so full of themselves. As if “truth” exists.Unless “true” is defined as “evidenced structure” or “evidenced model parameter” the only truths are the factual happenings documented in the past. It was 91⁰F today. This is true - a universal truth that cannot be denied.Let me re-write this errant musing.

azpaul3:

---

Realist theories of scientific progress take evidence generation to be an important goal of inquiry. This view is built into the realistic definition of knowledge as “our best guess at the time”: if science is a knowledge-seeking activity, then it is also an evidence-seeking activity.

---

Sorry. Science doesn’t do truth. Truth is absolute. That doesn’t play well in this relativistic universe.Besides, truth is too restrictive. It robs us of our flexibility to change if we have evidence that our theories need to change.You guys do truth, and when you find you need to change, you can’t. You’re stuck with the old sacred universal TRVTH that is not of this world and cannot ever change until there is a schism and then you guys go to war and it really is a mess. Stay away from the concept of absolute truth. It’s evil. It causes good people to make war. Onward Science Soldiers. No, Raph, science doesn’t control truth. Not even your god (dressed up as the truth) can control truth. Truth does not exist. I could be an ass, Raph, but, not now. I’ll just say that whatever your scriptures say … doesn’t hold a lot of weight, as in any, in this universe.The reality, the evidence, controls everything. We follow the evidence like a bloodhound on a trail. Where it goes, we go. The evidence controls.Where science itself does control (or should control except we’re human and mostly stupid) is when it’s time to do something. Anything. Which path to take? What options to choose? Science will show the way. If justice is being extracted for the original sin of having been born, then no, there is no justice.After that, well, the universe really doesn’t give a flyin’ flip so justice, a human construct, is up to us puny insignificant monkeys. Our disparate conflicting sets of relative moralities are all there is to affect whatever justice there is in this world.Does justice exist? Ehh … sorta but not so much maybe. That’s all so nice, but your bibles and your histories paint a much more violent, bloody and evil picture than this.Besides, the actuality is I’m an organism surviving on a dust mote lost in the wayward western spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy where Truth, sacred, holy, divine, love, life and value are all puny human constructs the rest of existence ignores as irrelevant. Not according to your bible. Do I need to quote scripture at you? Your god states pretty plainly he made evil. And in his actions he uses his evil to cause suffering and injustice. He says so right in the book.But, yes, humans are responsible for a lot of suffering and injustice in this world and, yes, that will cease when we go extinct. But that's only because your god does not exist. There is only one source, isn’t there? Are there other sources?What are they? How do they work? Doesn’t matter. Reality isn’t a popularity contest, Raph. The universe doesn’t care how many angels can fit on the head of a burnt piece of Texas Toast. Doesn’t care one whit how many folk cross themselves or how many prayer wheels they spin. A hundred million genuflecting Buddhas has no meaning in or effect on this universe. It is called objective reality because it is objectively determined to exist.I answered your brain-in-a-vat already. It’s crap, Raph. Philosophers will chase a red car down the street trying to prove it’s actually blue. They are near worthless. There is nothing real or realistic in these matrix simulation circle-jerks and they provide no value to the discussion.Such inanity may be fun to wildly speculate upon but these unfalsifiable speculations are neither scientific nor intellectually viable for any serious discussion.Again, you just can’t see anything without invoking belief. Despite your most fervent insistence belief has no warrant here. Doesn’t matter. You can’t show the universe did not just zap into existence fully formed last Thursday, either. None of this “what if” last Thursday, blue pill simulation crap means anything.Until someone can show convincingly otherwise, the overwhelming evidence is we are humans on planet Earth in a universe with very specific operating parameters and an objective reality at its core.I will proceed on that basis. If you want consideration of anything else … show me, in detail. And your evidence is?Wait? Unprovable? That means there can be no evidence.No evidence = no gap. That was easy. What kind of seminary are you in? Don’t they let you up for air? You need oxygen. You’re hallucinating.Science DOES discern objective reality. We have literally gazillions of models of reality that we have shown work. And by work I mean foresee the future in depth and clarity. Accurately predict future results. That is why science has succeeded so tremendously. With science we can not only discern reality we can manipulate that reality to the point of knowingly killing ourselves and most of life-kind on this planet with us. We good at this science stuff.Are you trying to deny what science has accomplished? Are you saying it is all fake? Just some perception of the matrix? You took the blue pill didn’t you? No. Not even close. I most certainly do not agree.And frankly, at this point in the discussion, I’m disappointed I still have to explain this to you.We don’t use a learning framework out of faith. That’s you people. We chose the framework that has an actual demonstrable track record of success. Science. That is an objective evaluation, a reality-based decision. It is not one based on a wishy-washy “make it feel good” belief system formatted to arrive at predetermined conclusions as do religions.We choose this tool because there is an objective body of facts that details its success in capturing reality. Not faith or belief, Raph, actual fact, actual history.Beside, you’ve never shown us anything else. When are you going to do that? If you can’t show this faith gap because it’s unprovable how do you know it is there?What kind of borscht are they feeding you in there? Statements of faith all 3 of them. No such things in the reality of the universe. Not that anyone can show.But then, you are supposed to be showing us these different sources of knowledge and how they work.Please do so. Oh, hell no!The source has to be real, actual, demonstrably reliable - not some fairy tale. If science says grace over your source as legit then maybe we’ll consider its evidence.But, no, no, no. There is too much bullshit masquerading as wannabe evidence. The woo-woo merchants and the priests are very good at that subterfuge.No. Only actual proven methods of reality modeling are allowed to present evidence.Science is the only one available. And that’s because you haven’t shown us yours. You being shy? The problem is, Raph, you’re just lying to the congregation. There are no truths. Your methods-thru-faith show nothing. You cannot even belief-based-answer those questions for your choir. You haven’t any answers.Your methods cannot give you any answers at all, can they? If so, how? Show me. What bs is this?We’re not basing anything on emotion. Emotion is a fact. It is a part of reality. Unlike religion, reality is not based on feeble human emotion.How did this even enter your mind? Yah, science seems to have left the sophomore girls’ heartfelt yearnings to the philosophy club for debate. But, in actuality, the science of psychology does have answers for the above. There really isn’t anything we can’t science. If the electrochemical balances within the brain are so out of whack then all bets on all things normal are off. If the doctor says the poor schmoe with such defects is experiencing love then there is a chemical component at work in the brain somewhere else the person would be dead.We know how this stuff works, Raph. Don’t try to tell us otherwise. As does everyone. You don’t dwell on your heart beat between sips of wine at dinner, either. No. No conflicts, No dissonance. Of course they are all true in that high school lower level sense of true. They are facts. Facts that are part of the human reality. Just because they are fleeting emotions does not negate their reality.You seem to think that just because it’s a feeling, a fleeting emotion, it has no reality. It doesn’t happen? You don’t think science can see the fact of the emotion and its factual effects?Quite the opposite. I live, laugh, love. But, when the questions come up involving the deeper layers of human inquiry I can answer them honestly without resorting to smoke, mirrors, devils and demons.

Response to AZPaul3, Part 2! Well, yeah. But I've already admitted it is a faith statement, lol. How can I, though, when you will reject any evidence that does not fit your favored epistemological framework? Also, again, sometimes we do not get the right answers because we're asking the wrong questions. Things of the Spirit are Spiritually discerned. I can't show you anything. There is no process or formula or methodology I can control. But if you are open to revelation-evidence (subjective, of course) and willing to seek with an open mind, YHWH, through the Ancient Prophet Jeremiah, says,

quote:

---

"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord..." - Jeremiah 29:13-14

---

I don't think you're being an ass. Though I'm more of a beer guy, myself I think you have probably interacted with religious people selling something completely contradictory to what the Scriptures are even about. The kind of Christianity or religion that spouts ideas about a god existing who hates humans but likes putting kids faces on burnt toast is something I'd also reject as bullshit, frankly. Lol. It is interesting to me that this is how you view faith. I'm frustrated that someone perhaps introduced you to a kind of faith that "explains everything by explaining nothing." My faith doesn't work in such a way. Rather than explaining "everything," we find the Scriptures explains someone, namely, YHWH. A God, yes, but a person, with a character and personality and emotions and agency and hopes and goals.I'll concede, though, that many religious people over the years have probably tried to make the Scriptures be an "explains everything" sort of tool, when that's not what they are at all. "A faith" can center on anything, but healthy believers recognize the Scriptures have a clear agenda, and certain beliefs do not fit within that scope. If, for example, I want to believe Gimli from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is an elf, rather than a dwarf, I'm free to believe that, but any avid fan or reader of the series would know this is not only incorrect but such a core part of Gimli's character, to change it would change almost everything about him. Such is the same with the Scriptures. Different cults and fringe groups may believe something, but that does in no way make their warped beliefs representative of the community at large, nor are those fringe beliefs representative of the source material. I do not disagree with this, really. I'd only add the caveat that I think this is very black and white thinking. Secular, anti-religious regimes have accounted for just as much violence and death in world history as religious. This is pretty well documented, but I don't think this is what you're even arguing. I believe in aliens for sure! Their eye shape is probably unknowable though lol. or maybe this is a reference to something Im not aware of? I don't think we really disagree about what maybe you think we disagree about. I'm not anti-science, as you are anti-theist. I think the scientific method is a great epistemological tool, even the best one we've created. I listen to, and courage other people of faith to listen to scientists on issues of the environment, gender, healthcare, pandemics, vaccines, and all sorts of other issues. I do not know that I am even arguing an alternative epistemological process.To bring it all the way back to the name of this entire thread, and where I perceive we disagree really, is this: I reject your assertion "you know that God does not exist." I reject it because you have no way of knowing whether your tools can measure the Divine/Supernatural (even less so for the specific God of the Scriptures). Maybe your table saw works great! But a table saw cannot be used with emotions, or logic, or love. Meaning, your tool, (that I agree works for measuring reality), simply cannot measure what you want it to measure. It can't.Rather, you, yourself, are a person of faith - a believer. LOL. You believe, by faith, that if a God existed your tools would be sufficient to account for him. But that is an infinitely large assumption and totally unknowable. So, what I am saying is, I reject your assertion because it is a truth claim without evidence, and ironically, fairly dogmatic, and dare I even say "religious." I have enjoyed this debate, and am down to continue, however the reason I have made no truth claims, nor have I provided an alternative epistemology is because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you are able to know an unknowable and untestable thing. Neither do persons of faith, so we are in agreement. And yet you have claimed you know God does not exist. That you can prove it. Seems like a contradiction to me. Can't have the best of both worlds, my man. This is one of the few things I've seen from you that I totally agree with We're on the same page here Sure, I don't even disagree. As long as you also agree totally anti-religious groups and governments have committed as much violence throughout history, especially in the 20-21st centuries. Here's a Wiki (admittedly non scholarly, low on time) source about the 7-20 million people murdered by Stalin's regime in secular Russia. Should we abolish anti-religion? Violence is less of a religion problem, as it is a human one, it seems.I think the issue I hear in talking with you this far is you have a very black and white view of the world. You buy into the fallacy that "x things/people group/method is good" while "x other thing/group/method is bad." But life is a lot more nuanced. I'm sorry you feel that way man. This explains a lot. You view faith as worthless. I don't really have anything to offer to change your mind. I don't really know if I care to do such a thing. I value you and your right to feel this way though. I'm sorry no religious person in your life ever presented it in such a way that you could see the richness faith adds to life. Perhaps that comes off as patronizing, I hope not. I'm sorry man. I think that's all I'll say here. Haha, well as you have seen, it seems to be a pattern that whenever I engage in lines of argumentation like this, many come out of the woodwork, so to speak. Guys like PaulK and I have had our time in the fire in the past Now we even see Percy join the fray!To answer your question frankly, it has been my experience that the anti-religious community at EvC is completely shut off and not really open to any answers I could provide to this question. I've been on EvC nearly as long as you man, since I was in high school in fact (I'm finishing a Masters degree currently) and this is a pretty consistent pattern I've seen here. I have always been the one willing to totally doubt my entire worldview and presuppositions, totally open to shifting my views and even, as I have done here, admit when I'm getting ahead of myself or even agree with you! I've never really seen that reciprocated. That's ok, but it doesn't really lead to any productive discussion that goes anywhere interesting , just more of the same. At this point in my life and higher education work I'm not really insecure about my faith, I know where the gaps are, and I know where the evidence is, and im comfortable with both. Because of this I experience a pretty healthy level of openness to totally alternate ideas. Anyway. I'd be down in maybe a PM to chat more though if you are actually interested!I'll leave this thought to end. And of course this is an oversimplification. Why did you believe your mother loved you? You might've been able to hook her up and demonstrate oxytocin was released in her brain when she cared for you. But in your real life, in the way you actually live, in reality, you didn't and don't need all of that. You believe it because you saw it to be true. You saw the evidence. Something in you resonated with that evidence, something deeply human. And that was enough. I am the same.All love,
-RaphEdited by Raphael, : Some grammar issues as usual lol

Edited by Raphael, : found an incomplete sentence

Hello Percy I'm going to sort of condense this since there is so much to respond to here. By epistemology I mainly mean "a process by which knowledge is shown to be justified."As I mentioned to AZPaul though, I am not arguing an alternative method. He made a truth claim, ("I know God does not exist") and I rebut it under the grounds that he has no evidence for such a claim. Most are objective, like the truth that you, Percy, are infinitely valuable and your life is sacred. Or the expanded version of that, that the lives and humanity of all people are intrinsically sacred and valuable. Or the truth that rape is evil. And the expanded version of that, that all injustice, oppression, and abuse is evil and ought to be fought against. Science does not have the tools to tell us these things. Nor should it, its for other things, as you have already said. Yes. And I must emphasize to you as well. I am not anti-science as AZPaul is anti-theist. I believe science, trust science, and use science all the time. But it is limited, it would be naïve to not recognize this. Science cannot test the supernatural. This is why I disagree with AZPaul's claim that he "knows God does not exist." I think that's pretty much all I'm arguing, so seems like we're in agreement! However, frankly I don't think AZPaul takes your same position. And I agree! I have zero interest in applying science to the Bible. At least not in the typical creationist way of it. I don't need to establish one, since it is AZPaul that made a truth claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on him. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the scientific method is axiologically limited. You seem to agree with this. I don't think he does though. Lol He doesn't need to say it for me to observe his language, and using that language as evidence, draw tentative conclusions about them. Maintaining that science is the only place knowledge about the universe comes from is an unprovable assertion, a faith position. An extremely well evidenced faith position, but a faith position nonetheless. I mean its not a mystery which ones I believe and advocate for, I've been around here a long time. Lol. Anyway, yes, why wouldn't divine revelation be evidence? If the supernatural existed, and revealed itself, if we are going to follow the evidence, if we are actually interested in reality, why wouldn't we follow that evidence?To your other questions, on the issue of the veracity of the topics you mentioned within scripture, most scholars use (and have used for hundreds of years) similar if not the same hermeneutical tools to determine what is central/core and what is peripheral for orthodox Christianity. Think if it as a circle with another circle within. This works within each area of study. The topic of "God," also known as "Theology" is massive, but there are some things all orthodox scholars agree on. God exists, and exists in trinitarian form is one of those things. The topic of angels would be fairly peripheral, since it is not core to orthodoxy, so there is a pretty large spectrum of belief on the topic.To not get lost in the weeds and get at what I think you're asking, yes, there are a wide range of interpretations of certain things within Scripture. But on others, there is a very narrow range. Virtually all orthodox scholars agree on the narrow stuff.Edited by Raphael, : couple fixes, couple adds

I'm gonna also respond to this since I'm trying to get caught up tonight, though I may have to condense this as well, maybe I'll consider it as an extension of my last reply. Haha, I should have expected this Seems like we agree here! I don't dispute the history. But there are plenty of religious people, and people right now in the Christian tribe who are not only nothing like what you have described but oppose it probably more than you do. Excluding the first one, I respect your freedom to make these faith statements. I won't think you're an ass, no matter how honest or blunt you are. I mean unless you insult my mom, I guess? lol. This is a debate between gentlemen! I am honored to engage. I don't agree. I think science can tell us a great deal of information that can help us make informed decisions. I think it is an absolutely crucial part of life and decision making. But it is axiologically limited. Science helped us develop nuclear weapons. But science does not ask the question, "should these be used?" "How should these be used? "Why or why not?" These are ethical questions. And beneath the ethics are moral assumptions. Is human life inherently valuable? Why? Who decided? Sounds to me like you have rejected a specific hermeneutical framework (that I also oppose) and equated it with my perspective. The more I read from you the more I hear this in your words. I'm glad for you then, that you live in a world with people of faith who can boldly answer this question, "yes!" and pursue it in the real world. Who knows where we'd be with a society of "maybe justice exists" police officers. I think you are again inserting a specific hermeneutical perspective about those stories I probably disagree with, but we'll go with it. Sure, but so does history in general. The list of peoples murdered in the name of no God stack up just as high. Science hasn't seemed to solve this problem. Now what? Go for it, just know that I read those scriptures in the original language, and I don't think they are saying what you think they are saying. I've responded to that specific verse here before, though not sure where in the archives it is lol.Really, what I hear, is again that you either 1. Were given or 2. Developed on your own a specific hermeneutical framework about the Scriptures, and then rejected the ideas based on that framework. The issue is there are plenty of other frameworks, and not all are created equal. Now is my turn to say: I'm not trying to be arrogant or an ass myself. Just trying to make it clear that what you have, over and over again assumed as the positions of the scriptures come from many assumptions that most serious scholars dismiss as fringe and untrue. I think you are actually the same only about the opposite. You can't see anything unless it is demonstrated by your method. And I don't think I ever said that. My entire position is one of faith (though faith based on evidence), and I freely admit it. My position is all world-views are faith-based, even anti-religious (or religious ) scientism. I realize now perhaps this language is confusing. My bad there. What I mean is that beneath the scientific method is the belief that the method has all the tools to measure reality. This is an assumption. So, rather than saying "unprovable" I'll just stick with the phrase "faith assumption." I don't really dispute any of this, and its the reason why I use science all the time lol. I feel that perhaps I have gotten ahead of myself with all this....I tried to clarify and condense in my last response to you, so I'll try and reiterate here, and maybe condense what I've been trying to get at with all these posts. I am a bit of a verbal processor haha, maybe that is apparant. I had a pretty strong idea I was heading here, but sometimes it takes writing it all out to clarify it even for myself lol. Here we go. This is my main point in all of this:1. You claimed you "Know God does not exist." I rebut this claim, and dub it a faith statement because you have no way to test or demonstrate that is is true.2. The Reason for this: The scientific method has within its foundation a faith assumption that it has all the tools required to test what is real. Its track record is good, however no objective source has verified this (none exists), therefore it is not objectively true.3. In conclusion, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you have come to such a conclusion, which is something you have not done. I don't need to, because I did not make a truth claim about something that cannot be known. I have my methods for how I know what I believe is true, but this story is about you, not me So, really, you are the one on trial, not I. Demonstrate how you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. Demonstrate how science has killed God. I'm ready.- Raph

I think we're done. I'll rejoin if you ever describe an actual alternative epistemological process.--Percy

Just checking. Thank you. You haven’t tried yet, unless I missed something.What I would like is for one of those evidences to be presented however you deem appropriate. However much you think I will comprehend. Well, that’s a specialty of science, cutting the wheat from the chaff, making sure the questions are correct, that kind of thing. No, thank you. This isn’t about me. It’s about you.You are the believer. Why? What made you believe? What knowledge came to you and how did it enter your life?You are in seminary. Think of me as your personal demon tasked with testing your faith.No don’t think that. I get enough demon accusations already. Horse piss? You uncultured heathen. Cabernet.And when I get that way let me know. Sometimes being an ass is so natural even I don't know. Thank you, Raphael. That was gracious. But the religious people I have interacted with are history, my own studies, more history and reading, reading and more reading, lots of it contemporary.Ok, I lied. My researches have been cut short lately by intellectual laziness and what is left is centered elsewhere. There is this muon thing going on in particle physics that is just fascinating and is the kind of thing that is a focus for me. That stuff and SpaceX. Gotta love those guys.But, after decades of this wonderful discussion and the prep to do it right, I believe (and that is a subjective self-appraisal) I understand the genesis, formation, evolutionary and historical motivations and bloody history of religion in general and more specifics on a few present human religions. Well, I do come by it honestly, as you do your view of the same subject. Except mine came from examining the real world. Yours, however, appears to be fantasy and I would like to understand how. An intellectual seminarian with a sense of humor seems like a good person to ask. How do you know this? History of the church, remember. You’re all cults. Do you know how many people claim they know? It’s scary. Just like most people don’t realize that if they wanted, the entire fellowship could have driven those huge monster eagles to Mordor and dropped the ring over the side in no time. But that would have cut the story to just a few scenes and taken away all that beautiful music Enya scored. That was amazing. Raph, of course you are. Such is exactly what you say answers your deep spiritual questions. You’re right, science cannot measure something that does not exist. But you claim to have a different ruler.I’d like to see it in action. Or is that so far down the rabbit hole as to not be possible? You see faith where I see a high confidence level in success. Having that confidence level in my vaccines informs me I can get out to my favorite restaurants in a few days. It also informs me that if your god exists and interacts in anyway with the operations of this universe we’ll nab his ass eventually. I can’t. Not possible.But my question is how YOU know such unknowable and untestable things as you claim. There once was a very strange and lovely lady on this forum and I do recall telling her the universe operates in such a manner as to preclude her, rather stupid, version of a god. And I would not put it past me to have said something similar to that somewhere else on this forum. But, I know better than to use the word *prove* in that context. At least I don’t think I would. Age and memory being what they are I’m still a bit surprised I’m making any sense at all. When it comes to reality vs fantasy, black and white is an adequate divide. Like death for blasphemy is way wrong is another good black and white issue. There are loads of others. But most areas of the human condition require a deeper understanding of the facts of the issue. It may not be clear at all which way the science will lean until it is studied in detail. Neither one of us is going to drastically change what the other thinks. What I would like is to understand the religious thought process better. How you found/find this evidence you say exists of YHWH. What sources informed you. What processes you used to verify the efficacy of the evidence. That kinda thing. Excellent. Just what the anti-theist asked for. A believer. You say you believe based on the evidence. Like being cuddled by my mom is evidence of her love.What evidence gives you god? That is a rather weak excuse for millennia of abuse by the religious power elite. Religious history is a violent scar on humanity that will never heal. I would never insult your mom. I don’t know her but I’m getting to know the child she raised and I think she did good. I like your mom. Au contraire, it was indeed the scientific community that first raised the ethical issues. They knew better than anyone the power being unleashed and the dangers of long term harm to humanity. The religious politicians ignored them. Unfortunately, it was the politicians that had the ultimate say and, at that point in history there was such an evangelical hatred of Japanese that no one else cared if half a million of them fried.Science does do ethical questions. We provide the actual facts that impact on the questions. Is it humane, harmful? What happens if we do? What happens if we don’t? But, people have to be ready to listen. The only hermeneutics I know are what the words mean and how others through time interpreted the texts. I know the facets, form and function of myth and I can usually tell the difference between what is said to be factual and what is said to be parable, allegory. What I reject in scripture is the presumption of knowledge that has no demonstrable source.That is what I want to learn. How does this knowledge emanate from this non-existent source?You say you have such knowledge. How? Police do not dispense justice. That is not their job. There certainly is compassionate discretion to be exercised by them, at least in an ideal world, unless you're black in America, but justice is not their job. And remember it was the people of faith who boldly answered this question "yes!" when science said "no!" to the use of the bomb. But, that’s human. Morality is somewhat pliable. I will not argue your translational scholarship. I haven’t that skill. But the bible that is in society today, meant to inform the people, not just the scholars, and has been so for centuries, is quite specific. You know the two verses involved. The claim is your god created everything including evil. Is the scripture wrong?There is a rabbit hole to go down some day. But not today.BTW, I will not question any translation you provide. I yield that field to you. What I will most probably do, though, is question how you think such scripture informs your view. Where did that belief come from? Not from anyone who understands science. We know we don’t have it all. But what we do have is very instructive and useful in determining fact from fantasy and can be applied to almost any situation though right now I am hard pressed to find any situation where science could not be utilized.Arrogant to be sure, but justifiably so. No one has yet found a magisteria where science could not enter. Quite true. As in factual. That is indeed my own statement of faith.Actually, my view is a logical supposition pending further evidence, but since you will find faith regardless I’ll go with it.Logic prevents me from proving a negative. But I don’t have to. In all the known facts of every human knowledge base there is no viable evidence for such a critter. Until there is viable evidence I am safe, snug and warm in my science-based faith … eh … in my logical supposition pending further evidence. See above on the “all the tools” thing. It is false.And science’s track record is exceptional not just good. Point of pride.As far as an objective source of verification is concerned you should have already recognized it in operation. It is the predictive power. When you can accurately manipulate and predict a future reality that is a pretty powerful verification that we have a clear understanding of that portion of reality. I hope things are clearer now. Who said anything about shadow of a doubt? Where did that come from?My supposition is that god does not exist because there is no evidence of any kind that would indicate otherwise. As with all good science this is a tentative position pending future data. But it is just like with Her Majesty the Invisible Pink Unicorn or His Noodlyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pesto Be Unto Him). You don’t believe either of those exist do you. And there are good justifiable reasons why. I apply that same justifiable reasoning to your god. You’ll have to ask the New York Times. They said god was dead. Apparently, as I recall, it was a protestant thing that got him. Science had nothing to do with it, yet.Raphael, I am out to learn what moves a mind to the fantasy of religion. The more I hear from you the more I am convinced you are the kind of person I can ask. I hope this continues. Thank you.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you ...I won't though - Raph

Evidently Percy does not have any way to scientifically justify God as part of the "real world". The peanuts will argue that none of us do.So Raphael, what do you think of the supernatural claims in Christianity. They argue that its all Biblical and that it occurs today. Has it ever occurred within any of the 7th day adventist groups in your circle?