Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

CFZ Explain Ignosticism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 5:54:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

I'll take the bait...

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And it's exactly what it says. :)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 6:02:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

One who holds that "God" is a meaningless concept, and will wait until a coherent, cognitive definition of God to be put forth before considering discussing the concept worthwhile.

For example, take a "weeboo". The word is completely meaningless, so to talk about it existing or not existing is complete nonsense, as it talking about what such a being would entail.

We can tack on a bunch of secondary attributes to it go get something akin to God as we know it:

"An immaterial, all-powerful, all intelligent, space less, timeless weeboo"

As you can see, applying all these secondary attributes gives us no information as to what a weeboo is, and is unsound to meaningfully apply secondary attributes if we do not have a well-defined primary nature of the thing in question.

That's pretty much what ignosticism is. That's not to say that there are no meaningful definitions of God, just that the general stance is to assume it is not well-defined until it is done so in practice, which is pretty much what my position is.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 6:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

Envisage is probably the best one to define it, but I'll try.

Basically, "I cannot know what cannot be defined", as it relates to god/theological positions.
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
11/17/2014 6:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 6:09:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

Envisage is probably the best one to define it, but I'll try.

Basically, "I cannot know what cannot be defined", as it relates to god/theological positions.

I like you're more, much more concise and direct.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 6:22:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 6:13:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 6:09:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

Envisage is probably the best one to define it, but I'll try.

Basically, "I cannot know what cannot be defined", as it relates to god/theological positions.

I like you're more, much more concise and direct.

Glad you like it. I saw you talking about this the other day, and it is a position I think makes a lot of sense.
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
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 6:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

By the way, the kitty avatar is a nice choice. You get points for that one!
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 5:54:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

I'll take the bait...

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And it's exactly what it says. :)

IGNOSTIC, not agnostic.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:08:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 6:30:09 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

By the way, the kitty avatar is a nice choice. You get points for that one!

Cats are awesome.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:20:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:07:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/17/2014 5:54:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

I'll take the bait...

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And it's exactly what it says. :)

IGNOSTIC, not agnostic.

Meh.

How is that definition above any different from this definition below:
Envisage wrote:
One who holds that "God" is a meaningless concept, and will wait until a coherent, cognitive definition of God to be put forth before considering discussing the concept worthwhile. That's not to say that there are no meaningful definitions of God, just that the general stance is to assume it is not well-defined until it is done so in practice.

I don't get it?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:20:58 PM, fazz wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:07:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/17/2014 5:54:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

I'll take the bait...

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And it's exactly what it says. :)

IGNOSTIC, not agnostic.

Meh.

How is that definition above any different from this definition below:
Envisage wrote:
One who holds that "God" is a meaningless concept, and will wait until a coherent, cognitive definition of God to be put forth before considering discussing the concept worthwhile. That's not to say that there are no meaningful definitions of God, just that the general stance is to assume it is not well-defined until it is done so in practice.

I don't get it?

It's a general term. There's a name for everything and most everything here in the religion sub forum is the same thing with different names. It all boils down to a bunch of hogwash ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:07:22 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/17/2014 5:54:17 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/17/2014 3:49:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In language that people who aren't Stephen Hawkings can understand.

I'll take the bait...

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

And it's exactly what it says. :)

IGNOSTIC, not agnostic.

My bad. Basically taking the position that the concept of God lacks tangible evidence and cannot be argued, debated or even rebutted. To compare faith in God with material evidence is like comparing a polar bear and an apple.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:46:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

My bad. Basically taking the position that the concept of God lacks tangible evidence and cannot be argued, debated or even rebutted. To compare faith in God with material evidence is like comparing a polar bear and an apple.

A polar bear a day keeps the dentist at bay?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:06:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:02:19 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:46:25 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

My bad. Basically taking the position that the concept of God lacks tangible evidence and cannot be argued, debated or even rebutted. To compare faith in God with material evidence is like comparing a polar bear and an apple.

A polar bear a day keeps the dentist at bay?

True story.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

Only us saints and prophets know our invisible Creator. There are many people who come to believe in our Creator indirectly by observing the illusions of this world and from obscure thoughts that don't relate to what they observe.

One of my friends came to believe in a divine power by finding a dime on the ground every day for a long period of time. The divine part is that each dime he found was heads up. What are the odds that every dime would be heads up?
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:23:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

Only us saints and prophets know our invisible Creator. There are many people who come to believe in our Creator indirectly by observing the illusions of this world and from obscure thoughts that don't relate to what they observe.

One of my friends came to believe in a divine power by finding a dime on the ground every day for a long period of time. The divine part is that each dime he found was heads up. What are the odds that every dime would be heads up?

The odds are quite short if someone was doing it to wind him up. Lol.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Many philosophers, it is true, have held that philosophy could establish the truth of certain answers to such fundamental questions. They have supposed that what is of most importance in religious beliefs could be proved by strict demonstration to be true. In order to judge of such attempts, it is necessary to take a survey of human knowledge, and to form an opinion as to its methods and its limitations. On such a subject it would be unwise to pronounce dogmatically; but if the investigations of our previous chapters have not led us astray, we shall be compelled to renounce the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the value of philosophy must not depend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.

--- Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash. Science takes all that nonsense for granted, nonsense which, like anything, is debated. I'll take the axiom that "philosophy will never achieve what I think it will" as one of those.

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 6:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash.

I fail to see how any of those things you have listed are 'philosophical axioms'. Here's a scholastic list of such axioms. Show me where yours are on the list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info...

Science takes all that nonsense for granted, nonsense which, like anything, is debated. I'll take the axiom that "philosophy will never achieve what I think it will" as one of those.

What? You sound angry. Why?

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.

Thank you for small mercies. Here's a thought. If you think you have a killer philosophical argument for the existence of a creator, one that has sound premises and leads to an inescapable conclusion, please put it forth. No-one has achieved that feat so far. Make a name for yourself.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 6:53:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:39:36 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash.

I fail to see how any of those things you have listed are 'philosophical axioms'. Here's a scholastic list of such axioms. Show me where yours are on the list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info...

All of the statements I listed are presuppositions that must be made before engaging in scientific activity. Any Scholastic philosopher (though not all philosophers) would agree that the universe exists, that the universe exists orderly behaviour, etc., even if they didn't explicitly articulate them in an obviously non-exhaustive enumerated list of their beliefs. Of course the universe exists -- you, I, and the Scholastics can all hopefully agree on that -- and if thereafter we argue about the exact nature of the universe, we presuppose an axiom.

Science takes all that nonsense for granted, nonsense which, like anything, is debated. I'll take the axiom that "philosophy will never achieve what I think it will" as one of those.

What? You sound angry. Why?

Not sure where this turned into a personality analysis. It's okay, this site does that to people.

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.

Thank you for small mercies. Here's a thought. If you think you have a killer philosophical argument for the existence of a creator, one that has sound premises and leads to an inescapable conclusion, please put it forth. No-one has achieved that feat so far. Make a name for yourself.

It's pretty evident that I'd be wasting my time. If you fail to see how "the universe exists" is axiomatic, or that any scientific study rests on that axiom, then I assuredly don't want to spew some delicate syllogism about act and potency at you.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 8:55:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 4:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:23:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

Only us saints and prophets know our invisible Creator. There are many people who come to believe in our Creator indirectly by observing the illusions of this world and from obscure thoughts that don't relate to what they observe.

One of my friends came to believe in a divine power by finding a dime on the ground every day for a long period of time. The divine part is that each dime he found was heads up. What are the odds that every dime would be heads up?

The odds are quite short if someone was doing it to wind him up. Lol.

God has wound us all up for eternity. We won't ever stop experiencing life, even after our bodies die in this age.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 12:12:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:53:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:39:36 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash.

I fail to see how any of those things you have listed are 'philosophical axioms'. Here's a scholastic list of such axioms. Show me where yours are on the list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info...

All of the statements I listed are presuppositions that must be made before engaging in scientific activity. Any Scholastic philosopher (though not all philosophers) would agree that the universe exists, that the universe exists orderly behaviour, etc., even if they didn't explicitly articulate them in an obviously non-exhaustive enumerated list of their beliefs. Of course the universe exists -- you, I, and the Scholastics can all hopefully agree on that -- and if thereafter we argue about the exact nature of the universe, we presuppose an axiom.

Who cares? Philosophy is BS. Axioms are no more than fundamentally unprovable assumptions. Pick your axioms and come up with a philosophical system. Choose a slightly different set of axioms and logically derive a different philosophical system. You can't prove anything with reason alone. It's all personal opinion and hot air.

Science takes all that nonsense for granted, nonsense which, like anything, is debated. I'll take the axiom that "philosophy will never achieve what I think it will" as one of those.

What? You sound angry. Why?

Not sure where this turned into a personality analysis. It's okay, this site does that to people.

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.

Thank you for small mercies. Here's a thought. If you think you have a killer philosophical argument for the existence of a creator, one that has sound premises and leads to an inescapable conclusion, please put it forth. No-one has achieved that feat so far. Make a name for yourself.

It's pretty evident that I'd be wasting my time. If you fail to see how "the universe exists" is axiomatic, or that any scientific study rests on that axiom, then I assuredly don't want to spew some delicate syllogism about act and potency at you.

I understand. You have a delicate flower which you don't want to expose to the harsh light of scrutiny. As long as it convinces you, right?

You are in the Religion part of debate.org. One wonders why you would come here if you aren't prepared to debate religious issues. You challenge the simple assertion that god is a solution seeking a problem, and when given a reasonable answer, seek to hide behind the skirts of philosophy to avoid further discussion. It's a cop-out to say "oh, you couldn't possibly understand". I'm not the only atheist poster here, after all. Or, if you really believe you are casting pearls before swine, take it to the Philosophy section of this site. Surely you'll find like-minded thinkers there who can match your vast intellect. Lol.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 12:59:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 12:12:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:53:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:39:36 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

In what way is God "a solution in search of a problem"?

Exactly what it says. Gods have always been conceived as either protectors (ultimate authority figures) or the answer to gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps have disappeared one by one, we are left with the concept of god as an answer to no particular question or unsolved problem. Theists currently try to squeeze in a creator god as the cause of the Big Bang but even that is being chiseled away by the work of cosmologists. Current work indicates that the universe does not require a cause. In fact, the very idea of a cause is meaningless. Hence a creator god is a superfluous concept.

The assumption here is that the methodology employed in the search for God is the same technique employed in the scientific method -- namely, inference to the best explanation. When scientists postulate, based on the observation of a star's gravitational wobble, that a planet revolves around the star, they are not demonstrating logically that there must in fact be a planet there, as the effect can be produced by multiple causes. It's simply most statistically likely that a planet causes the star's otherwise anomalous motion, and so they conclude, with a bit of honest uncertainty, that the planet(s) exist.

Philosophical arguments for God's existence, contrarily, do not involve this "inference to the best explanation"; rather, they are deductions that arrive to their conclusions logically and inescapably. When a philosopher says, based on the modal distinction between contingency and necessity, that there must be a necessary being wherefrom contingent beings originate, he is arguing based on metaphysical axioms that progress to a necessary conclusion. Whether or not the philosophical proof is sound is an issue that can be discussed once his technique is understood.

So to argue that the Big Bang is a better explanation than God, or that the Big Bang removes God as an obsolete concept, based on explanatory inference rather than a philosophical objection, is either (a) at best, a trivial misinterpretation of the work done by millennia of classical theists, or (b) at worst, intentional deceit to avoid an unabashedly theistic finale.

Sorry, but I don't hold much stock by 'metaphysical axioms'. Philosophy, whilst having its uses, is never going to acheive what you think it will. There has been plenty of time and no shortage of opportunity, and all attempts have been found wanting.

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash.

I fail to see how any of those things you have listed are 'philosophical axioms'. Here's a scholastic list of such axioms. Show me where yours are on the list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info...

All of the statements I listed are presuppositions that must be made before engaging in scientific activity. Any Scholastic philosopher (though not all philosophers) would agree that the universe exists, that the universe exists orderly behaviour, etc., even if they didn't explicitly articulate them in an obviously non-exhaustive enumerated list of their beliefs. Of course the universe exists -- you, I, and the Scholastics can all hopefully agree on that -- and if thereafter we argue about the exact nature of the universe, we presuppose an axiom.

Who cares? Philosophy is BS. Axioms are no more than fundamentally unprovable assumptions. Pick your axioms and come up with a philosophical system. Choose a slightly different set of axioms and logically derive a different philosophical system. You can't prove anything with reason alone. It's all personal opinion and hot air.

Well, that sure as hell ended the discussion. Woe to the entire realm of scientific knowledge; I guess it's all about "fundamentally unprovable assumptions" in the end.

Science takes all that nonsense for granted, nonsense which, like anything, is debated. I'll take the axiom that "philosophy will never achieve what I think it will" as one of those.

What? You sound angry. Why?

Not sure where this turned into a personality analysis. It's okay, this site does that to people.

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.

Thank you for small mercies. Here's a thought. If you think you have a killer philosophical argument for the existence of a creator, one that has sound premises and leads to an inescapable conclusion, please put it forth. No-one has achieved that feat so far. Make a name for yourself.

It's pretty evident that I'd be wasting my time. If you fail to see how "the universe exists" is axiomatic, or that any scientific study rests on that axiom, then I assuredly don't want to spew some delicate syllogism about act and potency at you.

I understand. You have a delicate flower which you don't want to expose to the harsh light of scrutiny. As long as it convinces you, right?

Nah, it's all about my arbitrary selection of fundamentally unprovable presuppositions. I'm gonna go with "not worth my time" on this one. That you critique the elementary claims which uphold, not only any major philosophical system (including the one I subscribe to), but also scientific inquiry, your entire stance is just circling back on itself in some sort of nihilistic cartoon.

You are in the Religion part of debate.org. One wonders why you would come here if you aren't prepared to debate religious issues. You challenge the simple assertion that god is a solution seeking a problem, and when given a reasonable answer, seek to hide behind the skirts of philosophy to avoid further discussion. It's a cop-out to say "oh, you couldn't possibly understand". I'm not the only atheist poster here, after all. Or, if you really believe you are casting pearls before swine, take it to the Philosophy section of this site. Surely you'll find like-minded thinkers there who can match your vast intellect. Lol.

No, I'm definitely here to debate religious issues. With many other atheists on this website, it'd be about whether the philosophical arguments for God's existence stand. With you, it's about whether or not philosophy is itself valuable -- I like the word I used before: "exhilarating."
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 5:20:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 8:55:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/18/2014 4:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:23:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:
"Ignostic" sounds pretty meaningless to me. I'm ignostic with respect to dark matter. No idea what that stuff's supposed to be.

No-one knows, that's the point, and that's why it was given the place-holder name "dark matter". We have an observed effect but can't identify the cause.

That's very different with the situation for god. God is a solution in search of a problem.

Only us saints and prophets know our invisible Creator. There are many people who come to believe in our Creator indirectly by observing the illusions of this world and from obscure thoughts that don't relate to what they observe.

One of my friends came to believe in a divine power by finding a dime on the ground every day for a long period of time. The divine part is that each dime he found was heads up. What are the odds that every dime would be heads up?

The odds are quite short if someone was doing it to wind him up. Lol.

God has wound us all up for eternity. We won't ever stop experiencing life, even after our bodies die in this age.

Btw, do you really believe that the best God can do to get our attention is to leave heads-up dimes on the ground? Really?
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 6:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 12:59:25 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/19/2014 12:12:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:53:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:39:36 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 6:09:45 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:53:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:05:37 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/18/2014 5:02:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 11:45:18 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:58:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:38:54 PM, Cassius wrote:

Exhilarating. I suppose the philosophical axioms whereon science rests -- that the universe exists at all; that the universe exhibits orderly behaviour; that human observation is reliable; that the universe's orderly behaviour can be known -- is all a bunch of introspective hogwash.

I fail to see how any of those things you have listed are 'philosophical axioms'. Here's a scholastic list of such axioms. Show me where yours are on the list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info...

All of the statements I listed are presuppositions that must be made before engaging in scientific activity. Any Scholastic philosopher (though not all philosophers) would agree that the universe exists, that the universe exists orderly behaviour, etc., even if they didn't explicitly articulate them in an obviously non-exhaustive enumerated list of their beliefs. Of course the universe exists -- you, I, and the Scholastics can all hopefully agree on that -- and if thereafter we argue about the exact nature of the universe, we presuppose an axiom.

Who cares? Philosophy is BS. Axioms are no more than fundamentally unprovable assumptions. Pick your axioms and come up with a philosophical system. Choose a slightly different set of axioms and logically derive a different philosophical system. You can't prove anything with reason alone. It's all personal opinion and hot air.

Well, that sure as hell ended the discussion. Woe to the entire realm of scientific knowledge; I guess it's all about "fundamentally unprovable assumptions" in the end.

Philosophy, not science. Do you really think a science class starts like this: "Well children, before we start looking at the life of a cell we have to consider a very important axiom. The universe exists. Write that down, it's very important. We can't proceed until that is understood".

Are you serious?

You can quote Bertrand Russell, with his metaphysically uncertain opinion amongst so many others. I'll spare you, in my immeasurable grace, lengthy pasted quotes from the ancient philosophers who support my view.

Thank you for small mercies. Here's a thought. If you think you have a killer philosophical argument for the existence of a creator, one that has sound premises and leads to an inescapable conclusion, please put it forth. No-one has achieved that feat so far. Make a name for yourself.

It's pretty evident that I'd be wasting my time. If you fail to see how "the universe exists" is axiomatic, or that any scientific study rests on that axiom, then I assuredly don't want to spew some delicate syllogism about act and potency at you.

I understand. You have a delicate flower which you don't want to expose to the harsh light of scrutiny. As long as it convinces you, right?

Nah, it's all about my arbitrary selection of fundamentally unprovable presuppositions. I'm gonna go with "not worth my time" on this one. That you critique the elementary claims which uphold, not only any major philosophical system (including the one I subscribe to), but also scientific inquiry, your entire stance is just circling back on itself in some sort of nihilistic cartoon.

Sure, if you say so. For the record, I have never cast aspersions on scientific inquiry. Anywhen your time is not so precious, feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom. Or not.

You are in the Religion part of debate.org. One wonders why you would come here if you aren't prepared to debate religious issues. You challenge the simple assertion that god is a solution seeking a problem, and when given a reasonable answer, seek to hide behind the skirts of philosophy to avoid further discussion. It's a cop-out to say "oh, you couldn't possibly understand". I'm not the only atheist poster here, after all. Or, if you really believe you are casting pearls before swine, take it to the Philosophy section of this site. Surely you'll find like-minded thinkers there who can match your vast intellect. Lol.

No, I'm definitely here to debate religious issues. With many other atheists on this website, it'd be about whether the philosophical arguments for God's existence stand. With you, it's about whether or not philosophy is itself valuable -- I like the word I used before: "exhilarating."

You and I both know that philosophical arguments in themselves, through pure reason, cannot prove any conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they are useless for establishing the existence of god. It's no wonder that you are reticent to engage in such an exercise. We understand that you need to find excuses to avoid putting yourself in that position. That's fine. It's all been done before anyway (without success). We all know that.