Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

TWO important questions.

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

[1.] Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

[2.] What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

How do you describe "objective evidence"?

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.

How would you identify something as being a miracle?

What about if a deistic god is real, what evidence would convince you?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:42:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

How do you describe "objective evidence"?

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.

How would you identify something as being a miracle?

A contemporary extraordinary event in clear in violation of nature as we understand it.

What about if a deistic god is real, what evidence would convince you?

If Intelligent Design were found to be true by modern science.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:32:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:08:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:42:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

How do you describe "objective evidence"?

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.

How would you identify something as being a miracle?

A contemporary extraordinary event in clear in violation of nature as we understand it.

Here is the major flaw though, would you contribute such a thing as being a miracle, or would you say that we do not yet fully understand the world scientifically?

What about if a deistic god is real, what evidence would convince you?

If Intelligent Design were found to be true by modern science.

Why does Intelligent Design have to be true in order for a deistic god to be real?

I understand that science is a great way of uncovering reality, but science only deals in the material. I am a materialist myself, but I feel like philosophy is an important part in this question.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.
What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist?

No evidence of god

Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If scientific evidence showed that a god has a reasonable possibility of existing, then I would stop being an atheist.

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:52:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

How do you define "evidence"?

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

If god is defined as being immaterial, how can science (which only deals with the material) ever show the existence of a god?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:01:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

I'm an atheist because...

There is not a shred of objective evidence for God, for an afterlife, for the effectiveness of prayer and the concept of prayer is a contradiction to the concept of God. Religions go beyond extraordinary and well into "silly", in their claims.

All I would need to change my mind would be...

Actual objective evidence for God, or even some of the concepts claimed of God (miracles, effectiveness of prayer, unexplained benevolent force in the universe, etc.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:52:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

How do you define "evidence"?

Basically evidence that can be tested for the existence of something.

If there is a boot print in the snow, that is evidence that a boot was there since a boot print was left in the snow.

If there is a series of tire marks on the street, that is evidence of a car being their.

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

If god is defined as being immaterial, how can science (which only deals with the material) ever show the existence of a god?

It is merely avoiding the burden of proof.

I can claim the entity of a fairy was created 500 years ago and say it is immaterial and avoid any form of test.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:02:43 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:52:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

How do you define "evidence"?

Basically evidence that can be tested for the existence of something.

If there is a boot print in the snow, that is evidence that a boot was there since a boot print was left in the snow.

If there is a series of tire marks on the street, that is evidence of a car being their

there*.

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

If god is defined as being immaterial, how can science (which only deals with the material) ever show the existence of a god?

It is merely avoiding the burden of proof.

I can claim the entity of a fairy was created 500 years ago and say it is immaterial and avoid any form of test.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:02:43 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:52:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

How do you define "evidence"?

Basically evidence that can be tested for the existence of something.

If there is a boot print in the snow, that is evidence that a boot was there since a boot print was left in the snow.

If there is a series of tire marks on the street, that is evidence of a car being their.

And if the god that exists, if one does, is a deistic god, what evidence would you expect to find?

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

If god is defined as being immaterial, how can science (which only deals with the material) ever show the existence of a god?

It is merely avoiding the burden of proof.

I can claim the entity of a fairy was created 500 years ago and say it is immaterial and avoid any form of test.

It actually does not shift the BoP. The purpose of that comment is that scientific evidence can only go so far. It is like trying to use a microscope to find a distant planet, you are using the wrong tool.

You need to use a different tool, one that might actually work.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:01:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

I'm an atheist because...

There is not a shred of objective evidence for God, for an afterlife, for the effectiveness of prayer and the concept of prayer is a contradiction to the concept of God. Religions go beyond extraordinary and well into "silly", in their claims.

Can you define "objective evidence"?

All I would need to change my mind would be...

Actual objective evidence for God, or even some of the concepts claimed of God (miracles, effectiveness of prayer, unexplained benevolent force in the universe, etc.)

What type of evidence would you expect to be there if there is a deistic god?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:12:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:08:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:02:43 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:52:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

How do you define "evidence"?

Basically evidence that can be tested for the existence of something.

If there is a boot print in the snow, that is evidence that a boot was there since a boot print was left in the snow.

If there is a series of tire marks on the street, that is evidence of a car being their.

And if the god that exists, if one does, is a deistic god, what evidence would you expect to find?

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

If god is defined as being immaterial, how can science (which only deals with the material) ever show the existence of a god?

It is merely avoiding the burden of proof.

I can claim the entity of a fairy was created 500 years ago and say it is immaterial and avoid any form of test.

It actually does not shift the BoP. The purpose of that comment is that scientific evidence can only go so far.

Are you suggesting that once science has reached its limits, which are expanding, people could go around saying that a god, the devil, or whatnot exists and expect their claims to go unchallenged?

It is like trying to use a microscope to find a distant planet, you are using the wrong tool.

So what is the right tool for finding evidence of god?


You need to use a different tool, one that might actually work.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:12:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:08:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
And if the god that exists, if one does, is a deistic god, what evidence would you expect to find?

It actually does not shift the BoP. The purpose of that comment is that scientific evidence can only go so far.

Are you suggesting that once science has reached its limits, which are expanding, people could go around saying that a god, the devil, or whatnot exists and expect their claims to go unchallenged?

Not at all. I am simply saying that science can only work with the material. Some claims claim immaterial things. Science is UNABLE to test or challenge those claims. That does not mean that they can go unchallenged, but that you cannot use science to challenge the claims.

It is like trying to use a microscope to find a distant planet, you are using the wrong tool.

So what is the right tool for finding evidence of god?

That is a question that I do not know the answer to. I do think that logical arguments are the current best way, but there are probably better ways.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:15:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:12:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:08:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
And if the god that exists, if one does, is a deistic god, what evidence would you expect to find?

It actually does not shift the BoP. The purpose of that comment is that scientific evidence can only go so far.

Are you suggesting that once science has reached its limits, which are expanding, people could go around saying that a god, the devil, or whatnot exists and expect their claims to go unchallenged?

Not at all. I am simply saying that science can only work with the material. Some claims claim immaterial things. Science is UNABLE to test or challenge those claims. That does not mean that they can go unchallenged, but that you cannot use science to challenge the claims.

Would it be fair to say that since there is no objective evidence for a god, absence of evidence, its probability of existing is low?

People have no problem saying fairies don't exist since there is no evidence to suggest that they exist.


It is like trying to use a microscope to find a distant planet, you are using the wrong tool.

So what is the right tool for finding evidence of god?

That is a question that I do not know the answer to. I do think that logical arguments are the current best way, but there are probably better ways.

True, true.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:21:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:18:47 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:15:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Not at all. I am simply saying that science can only work with the material. Some claims claim immaterial things. Science is UNABLE to test or challenge those claims. That does not mean that they can go unchallenged, but that you cannot use science to challenge the claims.

Would it be fair to say that since there is no objective evidence for a god, absence of evidence, its probability of existing is low?

I personally think that the probability of a god existing is low, but I do not know every logical argument out there.

People have no problem saying fairies don't exist since there is no evidence to suggest that they exist.

Correct.

That is a question that I do not know the answer to. I do think that logical arguments are the current best way, but there are probably better ways.

True, true.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:21:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:09:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:01:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

I'm an atheist because...

There is not a shred of objective evidence for God, for an afterlife, for the effectiveness of prayer and the concept of prayer is a contradiction to the concept of God. Religions go beyond extraordinary and well into "silly", in their claims.

Can you define "objective evidence"?
Yes, and it seems that no matter how often I do, I'm still asked to define it every time I use the phrase. It is evidence which does not depend upon subjective interpretation to provide the indicated conclusion.

All I would need to change my mind would be...

Actual objective evidence for God, or even some of the concepts claimed of God (miracles, effectiveness of prayer, unexplained benevolent force in the universe, etc.)

What type of evidence would you expect to be there if there is a deistic god?
The definition of a "deistic god" is one which has set up natural processes, and removed himself from the systems he caused. So - loosely interpreted - that's a god without evidence. However, if one assumes that this deistic god is intelligent enough to cause a universe, one might also expect some indication of intelligence, when all we find is purely consistent with non-intelligent processes.

The concept of a "deistic god" was produced to explain the lack of evidence for a god. It's little different than pointing an corpse offering no sign of injury, proclaiming it to be a shooting victim, and then proclaiming a "deistic bullet" to explain the lack of evidence for a shooting.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:26:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:21:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:09:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Can you define "objective evidence"?
Yes, and it seems that no matter how often I do, I'm still asked to define it every time I use the phrase. It is evidence which does not depend upon subjective interpretation to provide the indicated conclusion.

I only want you to describe it so that if people look at this forum, they understand your position.

Now, can you give me an example of something that has been found that does not depend upon "subjective interpretation"?

What type of evidence would you expect to be there if there is a deistic god?
The definition of a "deistic god" is one which has set up natural processes, and removed himself from the systems he caused. So - loosely interpreted - that's a god without evidence. However, if one assumes that this deistic god is intelligent enough to cause a universe, one might also expect some indication of intelligence, when all we find is purely consistent with non-intelligent processes.

The concept of a "deistic god" was produced to explain the lack of evidence for a god. It's little different than pointing an corpse offering no sign of injury, proclaiming it to be a shooting victim, and then proclaiming a "deistic bullet" to explain the lack of evidence for a shooting.

Do you think that logical arguments are not evidence? Does the KCA, if it is valid, not defend the existence of a deistic god?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:32:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:08:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:42:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

How do you describe "objective evidence"?

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.

How would you identify something as being a miracle?

A contemporary extraordinary event in clear in violation of nature as we understand it.

Here is the major flaw though, would you contribute such a thing as being a miracle, or would you say that we do not yet fully understand the world scientifically?

Good question. Assuming it was something extraordinary, then it would be harder to explain away with ignorance -rain falling up, dead coming back to life and not being decayed, and the like. I will admit I am very critical, and "miracle" would probably not be the first word out of my mouth. Also, I would prefer something I could investigate and verify myself. (that may be asking for too much, though)

I suppose when I say miracle, it would be in reference to Christianity, and not because I consider it to be more likely to be true than other religions, but because that is what I am familiar with. I would accept something mentioned in Revelation, like the two witnesses who could breath fire, and stop the rain, and bring about plagues. That would be fairly convincing.


What about if a deistic god is real, what evidence would convince you?

If Intelligent Design were found to be true by modern science.

Why does Intelligent Design have to be true in order for a deistic god to be real?

An intelligent designer could start the ball rolling then get some popcorn and watch the show, no? From my point of view, if there were a god, then it would need to be an impersonal deistic god because that is what reality allows for. I know ID advocates are generally Christian, but ID itself does not specifically endorse the Christian god as I understand it.


I understand that science is a great way of uncovering reality, but science only deals in the material. I am a materialist myself, but I feel like philosophy is an important part in this question.

Why would you think there is anything other than material? I'll admit there may be things we don't understand, but I don't think anything we deal with in reality is non material.

Also, philosophy does not have the explanatory power science does. Carl Sagan's quote of Robert Wood in his book Demon Haunted World sums my thoughts fairly well when it comes to philosophy and god.

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy, truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. - Carl Sagan

Philosophy is a favorite place for god, because he can never be conclusively disproven there.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:35:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:32:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Here is the major flaw though, would you contribute such a thing as being a miracle, or would you say that we do not yet fully understand the world scientifically?

Good question. Assuming it was something extraordinary, then it would be harder to explain away with ignorance -rain falling up, dead coming back to life and not being decayed, and the like. I will admit I am very critical, and "miracle" would probably not be the first word out of my mouth. Also, I would prefer something I could investigate and verify myself. (that may be asking for too much, though)

I suppose when I say miracle, it would be in reference to Christianity, and not because I consider it to be more likely to be true than other religions, but because that is what I am familiar with. I would accept something mentioned in Revelation, like the two witnesses who could breath fire, and stop the rain, and bring about plagues. That would be fairly convincing.

Fair enough.

Why does Intelligent Design have to be true in order for a deistic god to be real?

An intelligent designer could start the ball rolling then get some popcorn and watch the show, no? From my point of view, if there were a god, then it would need to be an impersonal deistic god because that is what reality allows for. I know ID advocates are generally Christian, but ID itself does not specifically endorse the Christian god as I understand it.

What evidence would you expect to find for an impersonal deistic god?

I understand that science is a great way of uncovering reality, but science only deals in the material. I am a materialist myself, but I feel like philosophy is an important part in this question.

Why would you think there is anything other than material? I'll admit there may be things we don't understand, but I don't think anything we deal with in reality is non material.

I, personally, do not think there is anything outside of the material. There are some good philosophical arguments for dualism.
http://parablemania.ektopos.com...

Also, philosophy does not have the explanatory power science does. Carl Sagan's quote of Robert Wood in his book Demon Haunted World sums my thoughts fairly well when it comes to philosophy and god.

The problem is, science can never deal with the immaterial unless we change what science is. God is a claim of an immaterial being. How, then, can science ever determine if a god does or does not exist?

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy, truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. - Carl Sagan

What about logical arguments? They are technically philosophy.

Philosophy is a favorite place for god, because he can never be conclusively disproven there.

Can anything be disproven 100%?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:05:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:35:17 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:27:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:32:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Here is the major flaw though, would you contribute such a thing as being a miracle, or would you say that we do not yet fully understand the world scientifically?

Good question. Assuming it was something extraordinary, then it would be harder to explain away with ignorance -rain falling up, dead coming back to life and not being decayed, and the like. I will admit I am very critical, and "miracle" would probably not be the first word out of my mouth. Also, I would prefer something I could investigate and verify myself. (that may be asking for too much, though)

I suppose when I say miracle, it would be in reference to Christianity, and not because I consider it to be more likely to be true than other religions, but because that is what I am familiar with. I would accept something mentioned in Revelation, like the two witnesses who could breath fire, and stop the rain, and bring about plagues. That would be fairly convincing.

Fair enough.

Why does Intelligent Design have to be true in order for a deistic god to be real?

An intelligent designer could start the ball rolling then get some popcorn and watch the show, no? From my point of view, if there were a god, then it would need to be an impersonal deistic god because that is what reality allows for. I know ID advocates are generally Christian, but ID itself does not specifically endorse the Christian god as I understand it.

What evidence would you expect to find for an impersonal deistic god?

I believe I have already answered this. Perhaps, you will explain why you don't find ID to be a valid answer. I'm not above admitting my ignorance, and its possible I don't understand what you're talking about. I was under the impression a deistic god was an impersonal god.

I understand that science is a great way of uncovering reality, but science only deals in the material. I am a materialist myself, but I feel like philosophy is an important part in this question.

Why would you think there is anything other than material? I'll admit there may be things we don't understand, but I don't think anything we deal with in reality is non material.

I, personally, do not think there is anything outside of the material. There are some good philosophical arguments for dualism.
http://parablemania.ektopos.com...

I have limited time tonight, so I will check this out later.

Also, philosophy does not have the explanatory power science does. Carl Sagan's quote of Robert Wood in his book Demon Haunted World sums my thoughts fairly well when it comes to philosophy and god.

The problem is, science can never deal with the immaterial unless we change what science is. God is a claim of an immaterial being. How, then, can science ever determine if a god does or does not exist?

Science can't directly, but it can address specific claims attributed to particular gods as they relate to materialistic reality.

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy, truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. - Carl Sagan

What about logical arguments? They are technically philosophy.

Philosophy is a favorite place for god, because he can never be conclusively disproven there.

Can anything be disproven 100%?

No, but god is defined outside the realm of reality we know. Therefore, god must be debated, with a much lesser degree of certainty, in philosophy.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:14:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

Don't know, belief is an involuntary process. The justification for God doesn't appear or come close to anything else I accept to be true (such as scientific theories, philosophical theorems etc).

What would make you change your mind?

Something similar to the revelation that the theory of relativity made on the scientific community. At the very least though:

1. The non cognitivism problem of God to be resolved (and for it to be well-defined)
2. Good, positive reasons for believing such a being to exist (negative arguments are unlikely to become one such good reason, which 95% of theist arguments depend upon.

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

To be honest, if God actually existed then I would expect good reasons for accepting his existence to have arisen by now, and they simply haven't, so I would confidently claim that no such reason will ever appear.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:07:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is the point of a deistic god?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
mrsatan
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 1:52:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I believe that God doesn't care whether or not I believe in Him. On one hand, it's obvious that if He doesn't exist, he doesn't care. He'd be incapable of caring. On the other hand, if He does exist and He cares if I believe in Him, then why don't I have knowledge of His existence? (If my point is unclear, I'll explain further when I have more free time.)

What would make you change your mind?

A convincing rebuttal.

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

I'm an agnostic atheist because I am unconvinced that I should believe there is a God. I see no way in which God could be proven to not exist, and I also think God is the only being capable of proving He does exist.

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

I don't know.

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

To get the perspectives of people other than yourself. To find flaws in your reasoning, or to help others find flaws in theirs. Maybe nothing more than to be a troll.

I will say that one should be able to answer the first and third questions before a declaration of atheism/theism is meaningful.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
PGA
Posts: 4,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:36:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:28:22 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

[1.] Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

[2.] What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

1. There is no objective evidence for any god.

Are you stating an objective evidence here? No, without God all you are left with is subjective, relative speculation as to origins and ultimate questions such as why is what you believe the moral high ground?

The Bible claims to be the very word of God and if it can be shown to be so then that is objective evidence because it supplies the necessary criteria for objectivity like nothing else can.

2. If I saw a 'miracle', ie. something that defies nature.

Miracles in Scripture or the gifts of the Spirit were for the establishment of the church and ended with the fall of Jerusalem. God has given us everything we need for salvation and restored relationship with Him if the Word can be established as God speaking to us.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:41:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:15:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:12:17 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:08:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
And if the god that exists, if one does, is a deistic god, what evidence would you expect to find?

It actually does not shift the BoP. The purpose of that comment is that scientific evidence can only go so far.

Are you suggesting that once science has reached its limits, which are expanding, people could go around saying that a god, the devil, or whatnot exists and expect their claims to go unchallenged?

Not at all. I am simply saying that science can only work with the material. Some claims claim immaterial things. Science is UNABLE to test or challenge those claims. That does not mean that they can go unchallenged, but that you cannot use science to challenge the claims.

It is like trying to use a microscope to find a distant planet, you are using the wrong tool.

So what is the right tool for finding evidence of god?

That is a question that I do not know the answer to. I do think that logical arguments are the current best way, but there are probably better ways.

Anything which affects the physical leaves physical evidence is open to scientific investigation. In claiming God is beyond scientific investigation, one also proclaims him to be inconsequential to the physical.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PGA
Posts: 4,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:44:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

Says who? Why is your belief true to what is real?

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

Which scientific evidence?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist?

No evidence of god

Says who? Why is your outlook the true one? Because you think your limited understanding of everything is correct?

Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If scientific evidence showed that a god has a reasonable possibility of existing, then I would stop being an atheist.

I believe the Bible is good evidence that has scientific justification to it. If x then y. If prophecy has demonstrable fulfillment then it is one justification that Scripture is true.

Just filling in time until my opponent responds to my arguments in our debate so I might not reply for a while.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:51:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:01:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?
What would make you change your mind?

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist? Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If you cannot answer these questions, then what is the purpose of trying to debate this issue?

I'm an atheist because...

There is not a shred of objective evidence for God, for an afterlife, for the effectiveness of prayer and the concept of prayer is a contradiction to the concept of God. Religions go beyond extraordinary and well into "silly", in their claims.

There is all kinds of evidence that your worldview will not allow you to see because you have a presuppositional bias to evidence that rocks your foundational view, what your foundation rests upon - little old you as the ultimate reasoning power of your universe!

All I would need to change my mind would be...

Actual objective evidence for God, or even some of the concepts claimed of God (miracles, effectiveness of prayer, unexplained benevolent force in the universe, etc.)

Try explaining qualitative value judgments without an objective reference - you can't without running into a slew of contradictory problems of which the question of paramount importance is to why are you right or are you? Try explaining benevolence outside of an objective, best source. Try establishing a best that can make sense of itself.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:26:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:26:07 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:21:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:09:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Can you define "objective evidence"?
Yes, and it seems that no matter how often I do, I'm still asked to define it every time I use the phrase. It is evidence which does not depend upon subjective interpretation to provide the indicated conclusion.

I only want you to describe it so that if people look at this forum, they understand your position.

Now, can you give me an example of something that has been found that does not depend upon "subjective interpretation"?
There are thousands of such things. I find it interesting that science operates on objective evidence and always has, yet people who like to think of themselves as scientifically literate immediately pause or choke when the term "objective evidence" is used. Fossils of dinosaur skeletons are objective evidence of dinosaurs. A bullet taken from the internal regions of a corpse is objective evidence of a shooting. A bit of cheese in a blood sample is objective evidence of contamination.

What type of evidence would you expect to be there if there is a deistic god?
The definition of a "deistic god" is one which has set up natural processes, and removed himself from the systems he caused. So - loosely interpreted - that's a god without evidence. However, if one assumes that this deistic god is intelligent enough to cause a universe, one might also expect some indication of intelligence, when all we find is purely consistent with non-intelligent processes.

The concept of a "deistic god" was produced to explain the lack of evidence for a god. It's little different than pointing an corpse offering no sign of injury, proclaiming it to be a shooting victim, and then proclaiming a "deistic bullet" to explain the lack of evidence for a shooting.

Do you think that logical arguments are not evidence? Does the KCA, if it is valid, not defend the existence of a deistic god?
No, arguments are not evidence. An argument may rely upon evidence but even that doesn't make the argument evidence. An argument built upon objective evidence can be completely subjective. And this properly identifies the KCA, which is - at it's very best - SILLY. I thank you for mentioning it because it serves so well to demonstrate why arguments are not evidence for their conclusions.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument begins with the premise that everything which begins to exist has a cause. What? How would we know that? The very first premise engages in special pleading (providing a division between the properties of that which begins to exist, from that which exists but did not begin to exist), and proposes a fallacy. Nothing "begins to exist". Nothing simply comes into existence from non-existence. William Lane Craig really should be held over the flames on these points. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So it should be put to William Lane Craig to provide an example of something that has been "caused to exist". He can't do it. If he could, he would over-turn the First Law of Thermodynamics and become the first philosopher to win a Nobel Prize in science.

And for your next (predicted) statement and the likely scapegoat WLC would seek, NO, big-bang IS NOT a creation event. It is a transformation event. It does not propose that the universe was brought into existence from non-existence. It describes the transformation from any one of several pre-existing states; (i.e. a singularity, pure energy, a collision of brane-worlds).

This demonstrates the fallacy of the KCA's second premise - that the universe began to exist. It most certainly did not. It began to exist in the form that we know, from a prior form. But nothing was brought into existence from non-existence. William Lane Craig is about as devoid of science knowledge as any pro-theist speaker I've seen since Kent Hovind. Both Hovind and Craig prey on the ignorance of science, common to the majority of theists.

Craig's conclusion is that the universe has a cause. Of course this is based on his two leading premises, which are both false/fallacious. And from this fallacious conclusion, he makes the giant leap that this "cause" must be intelligent (despite the lack of intelligent structures and properties in nature), and that it must be God - a disembodied, emotionally crippled, over-bearing, opinionated tyrant morphed over thousands of years from the roots of superstitious ignorance.

Does that really sound like "objective evidence" or evidence of any kind, to you? It sounds a bit more like a wife's emotional plea, "You don't love me because you don't like the casserole I made!"
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:38:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 2:44:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 10/21/2014 4:49:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:08:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Why do you believe what you believe?

I have a disbelief in god since there is no evidence for it.

Says who? Why is your belief true to what is real?
Says every theist ever held over the flames to provide objective evidence for God, (or any god). A belief is true to what is real when it is consistent with what reality demonstrates. Objective evidence is what reality demonstrates and there is none for any god.

What would make you change your mind?

Scientific evidence.

Which scientific evidence?
"Objective" (science doesn't have its own form of evidence), evidence leading directly to the conclusion of a creator (what we find is that creation is not possible), or of an - as yet - unexplained benevolent force in the universe, when all we find so far is that the universe is strictly indifferent to life.

I think that these are some of the most important questions when debating religion.

Why are you an atheist?

No evidence of god

Says who? Why is your outlook the true one? Because you think your limited understanding of everything is correct?
The proper response - were you able to produce it - would be to provide evidence. That would render his statement false. But you can't produce such evidence, because it doesn't exist. Rather than accepting that, you challenge the very premise you find yourself unable to confront.

Why are you a theist?

What would make you stop being an atheist? What would make you stop being a theist?

If scientific evidence showed that a god has a reasonable possibility of existing, then I would stop being an atheist.

I believe the Bible is good evidence that has scientific justification to it. If x then y. If prophecy has demonstrable fulfillment then it is one justification that Scripture is true.
So if I look around my neighborhood, point to a home and state: "there will come a day when not a single scrap of lumber from that structure will remain standing", then within the next 100 years (probably closer to 50), we will see that I have spoken for God?
Why do you not look at the hundreds of false claims in the Bible and conclude that the Bible is false? Is it at all rational or objective to find one or two guesses which played the odds and won, and on that basis, overlook all of the hilariously false claims?

Just filling in time until my opponent responds to my arguments in our debate so I might not reply for a while.

Peter
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire