God

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

oh, i had taken you comment about fence sitting as referring to my own about in case there is a heaven. My logic in the reasoning that there must be, or has been a supernatural power was because something must have come before nothing, in order for everything else that exists to come into existence. Now whether it is a god(s) or an atom that expanded, or some other non biological matter, that's up for debate. But for me it makes sense that something must have existed before nothing, and the idea that there is or was a god(s) that came out of no where to create the universe make more sense to me at least, than just non biological matter appearing out of nowhere developing into the universe we know today

I posted a link in response to someone else that linked to a website I feel gives a good intro to the first cause argument. You may find it helpful.

We do not know what came before the Big Bang, if anything at all, but one cannot say that it must be a god. That is very wrong. It is even wrong to say it is likely a god.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

What if your religion still prompted you to adhere to a quite secular scientific method in order to provide enhancements for society at large in productivity and learning, much like in the case of Confucianism?

Are logic and faith really diametrically opposed?

Logic and the belief in supernatural things are mutually exclusive. One may say that they support science and the scientific method, and in all common practice that may be true. However, as soon as supernatural beliefs come into play the person is being illogical.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God (sorry Dusken). Either way what you are left with is a belief. I know atheists hate this but I cannot change it. That is the way it goes.

I don't need to disprove the existence of a god. It is the theist that must provide the proof for a god and it is impossible for him to do so because it is not a testable hypothesis. At this point elementary logic would conclude that belief in a god is illogical because there is no epistemological reason to believe it. Period.

[jgk3]

Re: God

what's wrong with being illogical?

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

If you really care to experience the arguments against supernatural beliefs and you feel you have the intellectual ability to understand them you can read books by all of the standard author: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, A.J. Ayers, Baruch Spinoza, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, David Hume, Bertrand Russell and so on. I'm not willing to say much more than there isn't a single argument by people who support supernatural thought that has not been defeated by the logic of the other side and you can take that however you like.

I wouldn't put psuedo pop-philosopher Richard Dawkins in the same league as Spinoza. There are much better philosophers who espouse atheism without being as militaristic and hateful.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I am familiar enough with logic to know that it is limited.

You're not grasping that fact that it doesn't matter what its limitations are.

So we do not use our eyes, ears, nose, hands and sometimes mouth (!) to gather and interpret the world around us? At the end of the day, humans are the intemediary in interpreting scientific data and thus is subject to the deception/limitation of the senses.

I said it is not based on the senses of a single individual. That's why you have peer review. You can still argue that even that is somehow potentially fallible but again that doesn't matter because it is the best way to gather knowledge and there for it is our logical responsibility to adhere to the principles.

I know that the goal of science is to collect verifiable knowledge. However, knowledge in the context of science is limited to objects that are falsifiable. This means that the Scientific Method cannot be, and should not be, carried over to philosophy; it has been done before with disasterous effects.

I see where you want to take this. You're essentially arbitrarily categorizing things as being either in the realm science or in the realm of philosophy opening up the possibility of relegating religious dogma to philosophy and therefore not in the reach of science. That becomes a game of semantics and word manipulation. I'll first repeat that even philosophy needs to be logical and that a fallacious argument, philosophically is utterly useless. Further, it is inescapable that believing in a god as a cause is an attempt to make conclusions about the physical nature of the universe and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny.

Like I've said before logic and reason are fallible - never mind the fact that two people can be asked the same question and arrive at two different answers "logically".

Like I've said, the fallibility is a non-issue.

It depends what arguments you are looking at. If you are looking at these types of arguments or Aquinas' Proofs then of course you are going to think they are fallacious. If you look at arguments by esteemed philosopher-theologian Hans Kung then I think you will be presently surprised at how he deals with the issues of modern philosophy, atheism, and God head on.

I will admit that I have not read anything by Hans Kung. But I don't think he is going to surprise me. I have read/heard/participated in many debates and have never heard an argument that was successful. If his logic is as convincing as you say it is I probably would not be having this argument with you right now.

But essentially the "infiniteness of the universe" cannot be empirically verified. I could say the same thing that you said, only this time referring to God. "It cannot be empirically verified, but I believe it for logical reasons."

It can be shown to be a logical conclusion with current knowledge and that is what is important. I am not an astrophysicist so I can not help you with the details.

The same thing can be said about the Law of Gravity - it is something that we cannot see at this point. We can identify it as being a "force of energy" that makes planets orbit and such but we cannot say with certainty that it is completely True. We can only rely, on faith, that our senses are not decieving us and that what we are observing is actually happening.

I'll just briefly repeat that we are not talking about the sense of a single individual. This is like saying that 1+1 may not equal 2 and that we may have come to that conclusion by deceived senses. It's a terrible argument. Something is either worth your confidence or it is not, based on certain criteria. That is what is important. You are trying to turn things into black and white: either something is faith-based or it is not. This is misleading.

By the way, I'm sure you know that all physical laws break down at the beginning of the universe, right?

Some physical laws "break down" in black holes. And appear to "break down" in quantum physics. This is no argument. I don't see the point. All you are saying is that science does not know everything and that is something the scientific community already accepts. It is a principle in science. And it has nothing to do with this debate. It is a red herring.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I wouldn't put psuedo pop-philosopher Richard Dawkins in the same league as Spinoza. There are much better philosophers who espouse atheism without being as militaristic and hateful.

I am perfectly happy putting him in the same sentence. Thanks. He is neither militaristic or hateful.

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

I don't need to disprove the existence of a god. It is the theist that must provide the proof for a god and it is impossible for him to do so because it is not a testable hypothesis. At this point elementary logic would conclude that belief in a god is illogical because there is no epistemological reason to believe it. Period.

I've explained this in the post above but you seem to have ignored it. Logic and Reason are not absolutes. This is a fact you must acknowledge. The laws of science break down at specific points in the history of the universe. How do you reconcile this fact with your claim that logic is the best/only way to comprehend the universe?

In the past I've made the same mistake of viewing Reason as infallible. It's just not true.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

what's wrong with being illogical?

Illogic is not a way to gain knowledge. If one makes conclusions about the nature of the universe one is implying the arrival to knowledge. If those conclusions are dependent on illogic they must be treated as false. I should not have to explain this.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

I've explained this in the post above but you seem to have ignored it. Logic and Reason are not absolutes. This is a fact you must acknowledge. The laws of science break down at specific points in the history of the universe. How do you reconcile this fact with your claim that logic is the best/only way to comprehend the universe?

In the past I've made the same mistake of viewing Reason as infallible. It's just not true.

That quote was in response to someone else, I hope you know.

It is not the "laws of science". It is laws of physics. You cannot discredit the scientific process by throwing in the word science where it doesn't belong. Such language manipulation is a "straw man" fallacy. And there is nothing to reconcile. The scientific method is the best way to gain the best available knowledge at any given moment in time. Period. That doesn't mean that science is never wrong; it means that science is what is most right. And it doesn't mean that science currently has all the knowledge and understanding possible. That's ridiculous.

Incredible. I never said anything was infallible. Are you even reading my posts or are you just reading the website "The Best of Stark Evade: 1001 Phrases Misinterpreted by the Catholic Church."