Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't hold it equal to science because it's better than science. It makes sense of far more important (to me) questions than "what's the diameter of the world".

Ah so testable answers where you can actually see if their true or not?
They aren't important.

And so we're clear, God can't then answer questions about the physical universe?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again I'll note it being indistinguishable for you. You don't speak for everyone however - you don't have the authority for that.

Me and everyone else who isn't you.
How do think other people distinguish it?

You realise that you can use empiricism to distinguish reality from fiction?
Yet your made up stuff is still better?

antiskeptic wrote: »

How can I provide an example when it's a principle being talked about. Science itself says it doesn't comment absolutely. And it's the absolute likelyhood that reflects actual reality - not the apparent

Provide some examples of phenomena that you think science doesn't accurately explain.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To combat your own philosophicial musings. You don't seem to be aware of the assumptions your standing upon when you throw stones.

So when you become a believer do you have your irony glands removed or do they just shrivel?
You are assuming you are infallible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't answer them according to the narrow framework your operating according to. A frame work that rests firmly on the philosophy of empiricism.

Yea, why answer questions you have to back up with evidence?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gravity doesn't exist - only the effects associated with an explanatory notion called Gravity exist. And those effects are 5 sense detectable.

Wow.

Just wow.

You've opened my eyes.
It's clearly the gravity fairy!

She has shown herself to me and she explains it all!

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, God appears to equip unbelievers with a means to sustain their unbelief.

No doubt you've seen the old woman/young woman optical trick? The one in which the precisely same data can be interpreted in two completely different ways? Note that once the primarly connection is made regarding an interpretation of what's been looked at ("It's an old hag!"), all the other elements of the data slot into place to reinforce that interpretation.

So no, God doesn't trick people. But I do think he allows the unbelief to be sustained.

When you're the all powerful creator of all these things that exist to equip unbelievers to sustain their unbelief, what exactly is the difference between tricking them and deliberately providing them with everything they need to be satisfied that a falsehood is the truth?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Which ones? Most of the laws of nature are the way they are because they are the result of more fundamental ones.

If you are asking why the fundamental ones are the way they are I don't know.

Precisely. You start with the way some fundamentals are and consider the mechanics of what results from them. Similarily, God is the way he is and I consider the mechanics of what results from that.

I imagine you are implying that because I don't know the fundamentals doesn't mean I can't work out "downstream" mechanics.

Exactly.

But we both know that doesn't work for "God did it" because there are no downstream mechanics with a supernatural deity. He just does what he does.

And one of the things he did was make man and tell him not to eat. The rest is ... er.. history. Within that there are all sorts of things to tease apart. Downstream from God stuff.

Can you tell me what "God did it" explains, either upstream or down stream, please.

Sin explains. Where sin came from is explained. Why God made it so that man could sin is explained. Why God decided to make man? I don't know that - God just did it.

Easy comforting answers that have never attempted to be tested are something to be sneered at.

Pretending we know more than we do is something to be sneered at.

There is no particular reason that the right answer be hard. Nor is the fact that it's comforting detract from it. As for testing? I assume you mean empirical only testing - the only standard for a philosophy whose truth can't be empirically tested.

I've no problem with you claiming I'm up on a pedestal.

The pedestal is illusionary - that's my problem with it. It's not science you're defending here - it's a philosophy called empiricism. It pervades all you say. Yet you don't see it.

I am up on a pedestal. I'm up there because I'm sick and tired of the nonsense that permeates our modern society and this idea that if we just believe something then that is good enough and perfectly valid.

Modern society? You mean the most savage, cruel society that has ever existed on the face of the earth (in terms of scale of activity). Yet it's not religion that causes all this misery. It's the same old things that have always caused it. That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.

So yes I'm on a pedestal because I prefer living in 2010 not 1410.

I've a feeling that it's your residence on what might be called the "advantaged side of the fence" has something to do with that. Most of the worlds population wouldn't notice the difference.

Galvasean

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've a feeling that it's your residence on what might be called the "advantaged side of the fence" has something to do with that. Most of the worlds population wouldn't notice the difference.

:rolleyes:

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gravity doesn't exist

That's right -- the universe sucks.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Modern society? You mean the most savage, cruel society that has ever existed on the face of the earth (in terms of scale of activity).

And yet in terms of percentages, the time we're living through now is the most wildly productive, peaceful, trusting, law-abiding, long-living, starvation-free, threat-free, friendly, gosh-darn-it pleasant time that humanity has ever experienced. Here's Stephen Pinker on the useless Myth of Violence:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet it's not religion that causes all this misery. It's the same old things that have always caused it. That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.

I've highlighted the bit you need to pay attention to.

Have a read of Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect which explains one well-attested theory of "evil" in layman's terms. Without needing to propose the existence of any invisible horned chappies.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely. You start with the way some fundamentals are and consider the mechanics of what results from them. Similarily, God is the way he is and I consider the mechanics of what results from that.

But you have no further knowledge of of these "downstream" mechanics than I do. So "God did it" adds nothing, it is not an explanation.

I don't have an explanation either, but I'm not pretending I do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And one of the things he did was make man and tell him not to eat.

Why? And why did he decide to punish man in the way he did?

This is the thing, again "God did it" explains nothing cause you don't know why. Why one way over the other.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin explains. Where sin came from is explained.

Where it comes from is not that relevant since everything comes from God. If God exists then "God did it" is the cause of everything but it is not an explanation with the why.

Which the Bible does not tell us. So it is not an explanation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no particular reason that the right answer be hard. Nor is the fact that it's comforting detract from it.

Odd are it won't be though, since there are only a few possible answer that are comforting and a million that aren't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for testing? I assume you mean empirical only testing - the only standard for a philosophy whose truth can't be empirically tested.

So you agree that sending your sick child to a witch doctor is as useful as sending him to a medical doctor since testing has no value in determining accuracy of concepts?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The pedestal is illusionary - that's my problem with it. It's not science you're defending here - it's a philosophy called empiricism. It pervades all you say. Yet you don't see it.

If you think science and empiricism are different you don't understand either.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Modern society? You mean the most savage, cruel society that has ever existed on the face of the earth (in terms of scale of activity).

Nonsense, you are living in the safest peaceful time in human history.

But you are simply avoiding the central issue here, do you accept testing in things like medicine, or is every opinion equally valid so long as you believe in it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That thing the Bible does a hell of a better job explaining that any science I've ever seen.

That is hardly surprising.

The Bible tells us what we want to hear, what makes sense and is mentally comforting. The thing is the universe is actually under obligation to make sense and be mentally comforting.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've a feeling that it's your residence on what might be called the "advantaged side of the fence" has something to do with that. Most of the worlds population wouldn't notice the difference.

Most of the worlds population would be dying if that was the case.

Again do you think empirical testing has valid?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you're the all powerful creator of all these things that exist to equip unbelievers to sustain their unbelief, what exactly is the difference between tricking them and deliberately providing them with everything they need to be satisfied that a falsehood is the truth?

You're not considering the sequence:

1) unbelief is a state desired by men.

2) Man plucks from the available menu proferred by God in order to construct a nest for that unbelief. So that the desire for what unbelief offers can be satisified

All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position. It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.

God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) unbelief is a state desired by men.

Why?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2) Man plucks from the available menu proferred by God in order to construct a nest for that unbelief. So that the desire for what unbelief offers can be satisified

But all these things that support mans disbelief - empiclism, the scientific method etc.- all supposedly came from religious institutions of learning. Why would god give man evidence of his non-existence when man was clearly on gods side in the first place? Why does he keep giving evidence that builds on upon previous evidence? Why does god punish rational enquiry and reward blinding acceptance of religious authority?

antiskeptic wrote: »

All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position.

A position god put him in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.

Why would he do that?

antiskeptic wrote: »

God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.

No, he tips the scales in favour of getting to dole out punishment to people who dont believe in something god himself has convinced them of not believing.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That's not the only thing you've done in this thread: you've also ignored my question three times, and your dignified, but complete, silence on the issue of the credibility of the gospel accounts warms the cockles of my atheistic heart on this splendid morning

I'm glad your cockles are warmed.

I have no intention of participating in such a discussion given the format and moderation of this forum.

I had understood that posters on any forum of boards.ie are free to respond or not respond to whatever topics or subjects they choose without being hassled for so doing. I chose to interact in this thread on a particular issue, the strawmanning of Soul Winner's argument, even though other posters have tried very hard to move the goal posts or to settle old scores by goading me into making an intemperate response that they feel might earn me an infraction from a hometown ref.

:)Once the forum's very basic rules regarding etiquette are observed, this forum welcomes all comers, regardless of their beliefs concerning religion.

Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking.

Not that I'm telling you how to run your forum (that would be backseat modding), you and Dades have a perfect right to set whatever tone you want and that is none of my business. But those who don't share your ideology are, I presume, free to choose whether to post here or not and in response to which topics they choose.

I am convinced that if I posted that Saturday precedes Sunday then certain posters would use it as a pretext to start making snide and personal comments about me and how hard done by they are because of the moderating policy on another forum. So, I choose to engage in this forum on a very limited basis and only with narrow parameters. Of course if that is displeasing to you and Dades you only have to let me know and I will comply with any request to desist.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But you have no further knowledge of of these "downstream" mechanics than I do. So "God did it" adds nothing, it is not an explanation.

We don't know why gravity - but we can examine what occurs as a result
We don't know why God holy - but we can examine what occurs as a result.

That kind of separation between God and downstream of God

Why? And why did he decide to punish man in the way he did?

That why is like asking why does gravity act as it does? You're not dealing with downstream there. God, like gravity, would have the attributes he/it has and that's that.

Where it comes from is not that relevant since everything comes from God. If God exists then "God did it" is the cause of everything but it is not an explanation with the why.

Whether naturalistic or God, the why question doesn't exist at the source. Why gravity?

Which the Bible does not tell us. So it is not an explanation.

Because it pleased him to do it appears to be the answer. Why did this please him as opposed to something else? God is as he is - just as any first cause is.

Odd are it won't be though, since there are only a few possible answer that are comforting and a million that aren't.

Tell that to the person who wins the lotto on their first attempt. Easy and comforting. And eminently possible.

So you agree that sending your sick child to a witch doctor is as useful as sending him to a medical doctor since testing has no value in determining accuracy of concepts?

My contention is with your applying philsophical empiricism across the board - as if empirical means are the only way to knowledge. I'm not denying the value of empirically-arrived at knowledge.

The two things empirically arrived at knowledge and philosophical empiricism are two different things.

If you think science and empiricism are different you don't understand either.

Philosophical empiricism.

Nonsense, you are living in the safest peaceful time in human history.

By "modern" I didn't take you to mean the thinnest slice chosen for it's relative peacefulness. Say the last hundred years or so - the bloodiest of all time.

That kind of modern.

But you are simply avoiding the central issue here, do you accept testing in things like medicine, or is every opinion equally valid so long as you believe in it?

I've pointed out the conflation between the philosophy empiricism and the activitiy empirical testing. My comments are directed at your philosophy - one that cannot demonstrate itself to be the case.

That is hardly surprising.

The Bible tells us what we want to hear, what makes sense and is mentally comforting. The thing is the universe is actually under obligation to make sense and be mentally comforting.

I wasn't talking about we. I was talking about me. I've to compare what science says about say, evil, with what the Bible says about evil. And I find the Bibles take one that makes more sense out of the observations than science. The universe isn't obliged to make sense, but when it does, it's worth taking note of whose pointing that out.

Again do you think empirical testing has valid?

Clarifed above.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

We don't know why gravity - but we can examine what occurs as a result
We don't know why God holy - but we can examine what occurs as a result.

Yes but we want to know "why gravity". That is the point. We want an explanation.

God did it it is not an explanation, just a reason to stop asking.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because it pleased him to do it appears to be the answer. Why did this please him as opposed to something else? God is as he is - just as any first cause is.

A perfect example of the above.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Tell that to the person who wins the lotto on their first attempt. Easy and comforting. And eminently possible.

And rather unlikely.

You could win the Lotto, you probably won't. God could be the answer, he probably isn't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My contention is with your applying philsophical empiricism across the board - as if empirical means are the only way to knowledge. I'm not denying the value of empirically-arrived at knowledge.

Ah, now it becomes clear.

So you are happy to apply empirical testing to somethings, just not to the things that you would rather not have turn out to be untrue, such as your belief in God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

By "modern" I didn't take you to mean the thinnest slice chosen for it's relative peacefulness. Say the last hundred years or so - the bloodiest of all time.

The last hundred years have not been the bloodiest of all time, see Robins link.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've pointed out the conflation between the philosophy empiricism and the activitiy empirical testing. My comments are directed at your philosophy - one that cannot demonstrate itself to be the case.

Sorry antiskeptic, that is just smoke and mirrors. I never mentioned a philosophy I mentioned a specific belief, your belief that God has let you know he exists.

You don't want to empirically test that because you don't want to open it up to not being true. You would much rather it was true.

That sort of thing leads to parents abandoning their children to their disease.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't talking about we. I was talking about me. I've to compare what science says about say, evil, with what the Bible says about evil. And I find the Bibles take one that makes more sense out of the observations than science.

Empirical observations? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking.

LOL, you should feel at home then :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not considering the sequence:

1) unbelief is a state desired by men.

2) Man plucks from the available menu proferred by God in order to construct a nest for that unbelief. So that the desire for what unbelief offers can be satisified

All God is doing is making it possible for an unbeliever to sustain his position. It's not so much trickery, as providing that which the unbeliever desires.

I'm still failing to see the difference. Someone does not have to "desire" to be an unbeliever. If god has provided enough for someone to be satisfied in unbelief then a totally unbiased observer who may actually believe in god if the evidence suggested it could end up an unbeliever because god has provided things for the explicit purpose of providing support for a falsehood. This is another form of the old "test of faith" argument and it turns god into a liar.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God forbid that God be accused of tipping the scales in his own favour.

And what is god giving you this experience that has absolutely convinced you of his existence if not tipping the scales in his own favour?

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

We don't know why gravity - but we can examine what occurs as a result
We don't know why God holy - but we can examine what occurs as a result.


That why is like asking why does gravity act as it does? You're not dealing with downstream there. God, like gravity, would have the attributes he/it has and that's that.

Whether naturalistic or God, the why question doesn't exist at the source. Why gravity?

Just got off the phone with gravity there, it wants you to stop abusing it.

strobe

Philosophical empiricism? What the hell is that Anti-skeptic? If I chose to rely on emperical evidence when testing a vaccine and then chose to rely on it when testing a jet engine, does the fact I required emperical evidence on both things mean I hold to this "philosophical empiricism". Where do you draw the line? How would it make any sense for me to require empirical evidence for the vaccine and jet engine, realise that that was the only evidence that proved useful in knowing anything about them but then decide I was just going to stare at my prototype digital radio and decide "Yeah my gut feeling tells me it works grand, no need to empirically test anything before I pitch it to that company"?

Haven't we covered this ground before. I can't believe you still don't grasp the concept. There was a whole thread dedicated to it before. Why not just go and re-read that thread instead of reposting the same stuff here. But at this stage I think it would probably be a waste of time, you seem to have some mental block to taking on what people are telling you about it. It was made very clear to you why empiricism is what people require.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Philosophical empiricism?

Testing things that theists would rather you didn't test because they would much prefer that they were true than not true.

For example, I don't want you to test whether the girl in work likes me. I think she does, but if she doesn't that would be upsetting. So don't for the love of Dawkins ask her if she likes me. That would risk the possibility that she doesn't actually like me, and that would be upsetting.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I have no intention of participating in such a discussion given the format and moderation of this forum.

If you have any complaints about the moderation in this forum, please feel free to take them to Feedback.

PDN wrote: »

I am convinced that if I posted that Saturday precedes Sunday then certain posters would use it as a pretext to start making snide and personal comments about me and how hard done by they are because of the moderating policy on another forum.

The 'report post' button is there for people to report posts that they feel violate forum rules. As it happens, in this thread, an A+A poster was the first one to receive a finger-wagging for posting unbecoming.

PDN wrote: »

Of course if that is displeasing to you and Dades you only have to let me know and I will comply with any request to desist.

Not at all! As above, this forum welcomes all-comers, especially those with divergent opinions. As a moderator with strongly-held opposing opinions, you are especially welcome!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

If you have any complaints about the moderation in this forum, please feel free to take them to [url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin

I have no complaints about the moderation of this forum. It is a partisan forum for people of a particular opinion and moderated by people who are passionate about that same opinion. And that is absolutely fine by me.

I was politely explaining to monosharp why such a discussion as he was proposing would not go well in a partisan forum such as this.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL, you should feel at home then :rolleyes:

I'm not pretending that the Christianity forum is impartial or a suitable venue for the discussion monosharp was proposing. It is also a partisan forum with partisan mods.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I have no complaints about the moderation of this [...] partisan forum.

PDN wrote: »

[...] Christianity [...] is also a partisan forum with partisan mods.

God's warriors vs ~god's warriors?

I'm sure we can do better than that

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Yes. They are welcome to be insulted and mocked while the moderator adds his thanks to the sarcastic posts that are doing the mocking.
....
making snide and personal comments about me

In fairness PDN, if you gave a bit less you might just get a bit less in return. From where I'm sitting this tone you speak of has nothing to do with any partisanship or bias against christians. Plenty of christians come here and have no snide personal comments made about them or insults directed towards them

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness PDN, if you gave a bit less you might just get a bit less in return. From where I'm sitting this tone you speak of has nothing to do with any partisanship or bias against christians. Plenty of christians come here and have no snide personal comments made about them or insults directed towards them

Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?

Drop the persecution complex -- this ain't an end-times revival meeting

As you're no doubt aware, every personal insult I've been aware of has been actioned by either Dades or myself and that includes including slapping permanent bans on repeat offenders.

Any further comments on forum moderation will be deleted.

MikeC101

King Mob wrote: »

Wow.

Just wow.

You've opened my eyes.
It's clearly the gravity fairy!

She has shown herself to me and she explains it all!

Gravity fairy, now that's just nonsense.

It's all explained by the theory of Intelligent Falling

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down"

Teach the controversy, schools - let students make an informed decision!

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Philosophical empiricism? What the hell is that Anti-skeptic?

It's a position that holds (in it's more extreme forms) that knowledge can only be arrived at via 5 sense experience/detection

If I chose to rely on emperical evidence when testing a vaccine and then chose to rely on it when testing a jet engine, does the fact I required emperical evidence on both things mean I hold to this "philosophical empiricism".

No.

Where do you draw the line?

At the fact that this particular philosophy - although prevelent in the AA forum - cannot be demonstrated to be the case. And certaintly not empirically.

This doesn't prove any other ways of arriving at knowledge. But that's another issue: the point is the dogmatic insistance that if it's not open to empirical investigation then you can't know it/it's rubbish/it's delusion .. and all the various ways the philosopy is expressed... is built on a hill of beans.

How would it make any sense for me to require empirical evidence for the vaccine and jet engine, realise that that was the only evidence that proved useful in knowing anything about them but then decide I was just going to stare at my prototype digital radio and decide "Yeah my gut feeling tells me it works grand, no need to empirically test anything before I pitch it to that company"?

False dilemma.

But what about the thoughts in your head. What empirical evidence have you got that they have happened. Or are solely yours? Assuming you have no empirical evidence that can demonstrate what you suspect is the case, do you think you can know they are your thoughts.

Or are you just assuming they are and moving on (which brings into question the sense of supposing someone else deluded)

Haven't we covered this ground before. I can't believe you still don't grasp the concept. There was a whole thread dedicated to it before. Why not just go and re-read that thread instead of reposting the same stuff here. But at this stage I think it would probably be a waste of time, you seem to have some mental block to taking on what people are telling you about it. It was made very clear to you why empiricism is what people require.

I understand what empirical evidence is (to a degree). I also understand what philosophical empiricism is (to a degree). You appear to be confusing the one for the other. I'm a great admirer of empirical evidence: it's sure darn useful. It's just that I don't worship it.


I can understand why people require empirical evidence. It's because they are philosophical empiricists. If they weren't then they would consider other forms of evidence as valid (if not necessarily convincing)

Tell me: if God indeed existed, do you think he would be capable of demonstrating his existance to you directly? If answering no and insisting that he demonstrate himself empirically or else you cannot believe, aren't you simply demanding that God utilise an alternative method of revelation whose trustworthyness (as you perceive it) was established by him.

Seems you're snookered either way

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a position that holds (in it's more extreme forms) that knowledge can only be arrived at via 5 sense experience/detection

That's a very limited view of what empiricism is and I certainly don't know anybody who holds it. A more reasonable, measured view is that intellectual positions should be held with convictions which are proportional to the evidence supporting them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand what empirical evidence is (to a degree). I also understand what philosophical empiricism is (to a degree). You appear to be confusing the one for the other. I'm a great admirer of empirical evidence: it's sure darn useful. It's just that I don't worship it.

A+A people worship evidence? I don't think that we worship anything -- that's the province of religious people

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm still failing to see the difference. Someone does not have to "desire" to be an unbeliever.

The way in which the desire is manifest is mans innate desire for self-first. It's the root cause behind individual and corporate wrong doing. We all have it sown in our bones as it were at concepion - it's inbuilt. So it's not so much that we want to not believe in God. It's that our desire for self-first demands our sustaining unbelief.

If god has provided enough for someone to be satisfied in unbelief then a totally unbiased observer who may actually believe in god if the evidence suggested it could end up an unbeliever because god has provided things for the explicit purpose of providing support for a falsehood. This is another form of the old "test of faith" argument and it turns god into a liar.

It's the Old Hag/Young Woman gig again. The exact same evidence can be seen in two completely different ways. I look in wonder at the workings of the world as revealed by science and see no need to conclude Old Hag. That same information reveals to me a different picture altogether: the mind of God.

I imagine our unbiased believer can do the same as me?

And what is god giving you this experience that has absolutely convinced you of his existence if not tipping the scales in his own favour?

God turning up tipped the scales in his own favour. But his turning up was requested by me so you can see that my will was the deciding factor. I've covered it elsewhere so won't here: it's possible for an unbeliever to respond positively/negatively to God's enquiry. All without knowing God exists.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

That's a very limited view of what empiricism is and I certainly don't know anybody who holds it. A more reasonable, measured view is that intellectual positions should be held with convictions which are proportional to the evidence supporting them.

Would that include non-empirical forms of evidence?

A+A people worship evidence? I don't think that we worship anything -- that's the province of religious people

Empirical evidence I said. A kind of "empiricism uber alles". You see it alot in this particular church.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would that include non-empirical forms of evidence?

Which forms of non-empirical evidence are reliable, free from fraud and/or psychological effects and can be independently evaluated and tested?
If you can find one I'm sure it would count.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence I said. A kind of "empiricism uber alles". You see it alot in this particular church.

Except you don't.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would that include non-empirical forms of evidence?

Well, you're not going to be taken all that seriously if you invent something, then pretend it's real, if that's what you mean -- ie, conjure up something with no basis in any observable reality. Yes, it might exist out there, but if one can't interact with it with any of one's senses, then it's a bit pointless, isn't it? Perhaps one's time is better spent interacting with things that one can experience?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence I said. A kind of "empiricism uber alles". You see it alot in this particular church.

And by this, you seem to be claiming that the act of creating a mental image of something for which there is no evidence, and with which one cannot interact, is actually worthwhile?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Can you name one Christian who has posted here with any kind of frequency without receiving snide personal comments or insults?

I don't know. I don't know what you consider personal. Something I find with many people is that they have great difficulty separating criticism of their beliefs with criticism of themselves. Opinions of all kinds are ridiculed with vigour here and rightly so imo but I have very rarely seen someone personally insulted simply for being a Christian and such behaviour is not encouraged.

Having said that, there are some Christians who, for example, are widely considered on this forum to be extremely disingenuous (not you), and occasionally they're told as much but this has nothing to do with their Christianity. I can assure that the manner with which you are approached by many members of this forum has nothing to do with your beliefs, they are merely approaching you in the same manner with which you approach them

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've covered it elsewhere so won't here

Yes you have. We're having the same silly conversation we've already had. it went nowhere the last time and everyone is doing a fine job pointing out the problems so I'll leave them to it

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a position that holds..............is built on a hill of beans.

False dilemma.

But what about the thoughts in your head. What empirical evidence have you got that they have happened. Or are solely yours? Assuming you have no empirical evidence that can demonstrate what you suspect is the case, do you think you can know they are your thoughts.

Or are you just assuming they are and moving on (which brings into question the sense of supposing someone else deluded)

Kind of a false dilema in terms of thoughts vs god there man.

Firstly I could have a lab run a MRI on my head while I was thinking about stuff and they could confirm I was having thoughts, so it is actually independantly verifiable. But I'll play along......

Every other human being capable of communicating testifies or has testified to have had thoughts aswell. There is no confliction. So I take it for granted that the thoughts have happened without any real empirical evidence in that case. Yes. If every single other human being alive and that has ever lived testified to the Christian god coming into their lives and "showing" himself to them in some way. Without a single conflicting experience. Then I experienced something similar, I would probably take it for granted that that had actually happened aswell. You see the obvious difference between the two dilemas.

Tell me: if God indeed existed, do you think he would be capable of demonstrating his existance to you directly? If answering no and insisting that he demonstrate himself empirically or else you cannot believe, aren't you simply demanding that God utilise an alternative method of revelation whose trustworthyness (as you perceive it) was established by him.

Seems you're snookered either way

The above has already been responded to in the other lenghty thread several times man, I have no will to retrace previously covered ground with you in a never ending loop. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65073589&postcount=189

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Tell me: if God indeed existed, do you think he would be capable of demonstrating his existance to you directly? If answering no and insisting that he demonstrate himself empirically or else you cannot believe, aren't you simply demanding that God utilise an alternative method of revelation whose trustworthyness (as you perceive it) was established by him.

Seems you're snookered either way

If God exists then it is God who has already decided the way that humans can best discover knowledge, and the way humans are flawed in discovering knowledge. So it isn't us demanding anything of God, it is God being consistent with his own creation.

God cannot reveal himself to you non-empirically because God has created you to be flawed at view non-empirical things, ie things personally assessed. God can change his own creation to change all this but as such he hasn't

So it has nothing to do with us demanding anything of God, God is (if he exists) simply being consistent. It is the same reason God wouldn't reveal himself as shaped like a tree, since by his own standards of creation we couldn't tell the different since he already made a tree and it wasn't God.

If you have an issue with that take it up with God over how he created you.

Dr. Loon

Is this antiskeptic dude a troll or what? Gravity doesn't exist? Come on folks, I can't believe there are responses to this person. Clearly insane. And no, that's not an insult. I genuinely believe antiskeptic is not right in the head - sorry antiskeptic, if I were you I would actually go and get checked up, a brain scan or something.

strobe

Play nice Loon.

Dr. Loon

I'm being serious. Am I not entitled to my belief now? I think there's a problem in antiskeptic's head. It's a statement of what I believe to be true. I'll say no more.

antiskeptic

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Is this antiskeptic dude a troll or what? Gravity doesn't exist? Come on folks, I can't believe there are responses to this person. Clearly insane. And no, that's not an insult. I genuinely believe antiskeptic is not right in the head - sorry antiskeptic, if I were you I would actually go and get checked up, a brain scan or something.

There is an observed effect which we call gravity. Something is known about the circumstances that bring about strengthening/weakening of that effect. But noone knows why the effect exists. It just is...

That's the statement (right or wrong) in context. If I were you I'd polish up on my reading comprehension skills.

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is an observed effect which we call gravity. Something is known about the circumstances that bring about strengthening/weakening of that effect. But noone knows why the effect exists. It just is...

That's the statement (right or wrong) in context. If I were you I'd polish up on my reading comprehension skills.

What's you point anyway? Are you saying that becuase we don't know everything about the universe then we need to slot in God?

And slotting in God intellectually satisfies you?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If God exists then it is God who has already decided the way that humans can best discover knowledge, and the way humans are flawed in discovering knowledge. So it isn't us demanding anything of God, it is God being consistent with his own creation.

You smart enough to point out the glaring hole in this thinking yourself.

God cannot reveal himself to you non-empirically because God has created you to be flawed at view non-empirical things, ie things personally assessed. God can change his own creation to change all this but as such he hasn't

Who says he hasn't in those whom are saved I mean - if not the population at large. I'm not asking whether you agree this has occurred but whether there is anything preventing this being the case.

(The Christian view wouldn't be so much that God make infallible a previously subjective sense, rather, he installs a new sense which can detect his existance inerrently: which is different to saying that this sense is the only part used subsequently in evaluating and relating to God - which accounts for the disparity in view about God)

So it has nothing to do with us demanding anything of God, God is (if he exists) simply being consistent. It is the same reason God wouldn't reveal himself as shaped like a tree, since by his own standards of creation we couldn't tell the different since he already made a tree and it wasn't God.

The querying above should side-step this.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is an observed effect which we call gravity. Something is known about the circumstances that bring about strengthening/weakening of that effect. But noone knows why the effect exists. It just is...

Who is this Noone, and why hasn't he/she published a paper?



(Pet peeve, sorry...)

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

What's you point anyway? Are you saying that becuase we don't know everything about the universe then we need to slot in God?

And slotting in God intellectually satisfies you?

No. The point is contained in earlier posts. You can go back and read them if you like.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Every other human being capable of communicating testifies or has testified to have had thoughts aswell. There is no confliction. So I take it for granted that the thoughts have happened without any real empirical evidence in that case. Yes. If every single other human being alive and that has ever lived testified to the Christian god coming into their lives and "showing" himself to them in some way. Without a single conflicting experience. Then I experienced something similar, I would probably take it for granted that that had actually happened aswell. You see the obvious difference between the two dilemas.

There is a whole category of people you exclude here. They may be lumped in as people who cannot communicate with you to testify. They will include the insane and deluded whose thought patterns are so scrambled and medicated for it's impossible to make head or tail of whrere the divide is between the person and their delusion and their medication - indeed, in the case of a supernatural realm, some of their thoughts could indeed be from outside themselves.

Those who you include, include those who in some way or form, share your realm. It is their testimony, the likeness of testimony that assist in giving you concrete moorings for your position.



I do precisely the same as you: there are a whole raft of people who testify to God in a way that is uncannily like my own (whatever about the fringe differences that exist between us). That adds concrete to my own moorings. There is of course, a whole category of people whose testimony I discount as deluded and unreliable - that category being "the unsaved" whatever their shade.

Now you can point to differences in the numbers of the respective groups but I can't see why numbers should form any absolute reflector of reliability.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, you're not going to be taken all that seriously if you invent something, then pretend it's real, if that's what you mean -- ie, conjure up something with no basis in any observable reality. Yes, it might exist out there, but if one can't interact with it with any of one's senses, then it's a bit pointless, isn't it? Perhaps one's time is better spent interacting with things that one can experience?And by this, you seem to be claiming that the act of creating a mental image of something for which there is no evidence, and with which one cannot interact, is actually worthwhile?

I can't see an actual answer to my question here. I only see the musings of a philosophical empiricist. Winding back a bit..

Robindch earlier wrote:

That's a very limited view of what empiricism is and I certainly don't know anybody who holds it. A more reasonable, measured view is that intellectual positions should be held with convictions which are proportional to the evidence supporting them.

The supposedly "limited" view of phiosophical empiricism held by me stated that the philosophy held that only empirically evidenced knowledge could be called knowledge. You called this statement "limiited" and pointed to some "proportionality of evidence" as way of demonstrating same.

But if this proportional evidence also need be empirical then you haven't actually said anything to detract from my statement. It's still all about empirical evidence - uber alles.

In which case my statement is spot on and you've said nowt about it.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You smart enough to point out the glaring hole in this thinking yourself.

Probably, but how about you give it a try

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who says he hasn't in those whom are saved I mean - if not the population at large.

Because I've yet to see someone, a believer or otherwise, with a different type of brain.

For God to produce an undetectable "sixth sense" in us again contradicts the initial premise of God creating us to require empirical data to form rational foundation of knowledge. As such the introduction of such an undetectable sixth sense would contradict his initial design, which is illogical. Possible, God can do what he likes, but rather illogical.

So in all likelihood such a sixth sense, should it exist, should be detectable and measurable in order to be consistent with Gods initial design. Since no one has discovered such a sixth sense in any measurable way the most logical, consistent, conclusion is that such a sixth sense does not yet exist in any human examined.

If you have issue with this take it up with God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not asking whether you agree this has occurred but whether there is anything preventing this being the case.

There is nothing preventing it but it would require God to change us.

There are two problems with that

1) There is no evidence he has (see above)
2) This would be inconsistent with God. Why make us and then change us at arbitrary points on the time line. He could do this but the behavior would smack of God initially making a mistake or making change to his initial design, which is illogical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(The Christian view wouldn't be so much that God make infallible a previously subjective sense, rather, he installs a new sense which can detect his existance inerrently

The Christian view is irrelevant since it calls for a God that changes his creation mid-way after the fact, and seems to do so simply so Christians can side step logical issues and feel better about believing God talks to them.

Making God illogical is not a proper solution.

You can say God could install a new six sense, and God being omnipotent he obviously can. But such a view point is highly illogical and as such unlikely.

The only reason to suppose God would do it this way, at least as far as I can see, is so that you and other believes can imagine something has happened to you.

A far more reasonable solution is that you are simply mistaken. This doesn't require the introduction of an illogical God and remains consistent with God's actual design. Of course you don't get to feel you are special, so I imagine such a view will not be that pleasing to you

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably, but how about you give it a try

When asked is it possible for God to do as I suggest, a good defence isn't formed by limiting what God could do to what it is you suppose he would/should do.

Because I've yet to see someone, a believer or otherwise, with a different type of brain.

For God to produce an undetectable "sixth sense" in us again contradicts the initial premise of God creating us to require empirical data to form rational foundation of knowledge. As such the introduction of such an undetectable sixth sense would contradict his initial design, which is illogical. Possible, God can do what he likes, but rather illogical.

A few problems:

As far as I know, autistics brains don't look different to anyone elses. Pointing to the failure of an embyonic science to detect something says more about the embryonic science than it does anything else. Not that I'd be suggesting that a sixth sense exist in the brain anyway.

Only philosophical empiricists limit the field of rationally held knowledge to that evidenced by empirical data. The rest of us accept that there are other ways to knowledge.

An acceptance that there are multiple ways to knowledge introduces the notion that there are different aspects to ourselves which can interface with knowledge in different ways. Which immediately permits the introduction of a new sense to deal with a what would be new (born again) aspect of ourselves.

So in all likelihood such a sixth sense, should it exist, should be detectable and measurable in order to be consistent with Gods initial design. Since no one has discovered such a sixth sense in any measurable way the most logical, consistent, conclusion is that such a sixth sense does not yet exist in any human examined.

Again, the view relies on acceptance of the primacy of philsophical empiricism. Which the world and his brother generally don't..

There is nothing preventing it but it would require God to change us.

Indeed.

There are two problems with that

1) There is no evidence he has (see above)

See above.

2) This would be inconsistent with God. Why make us and then change us at arbitrary points on the time line. He could do this but the behavior would smack of God initially making a mistake or making change to his initial design, which is illogical.

You're aware enough of Christian doctrine to know that this one won't fly. Unsaved and enemies with God vs. saved and friend of God are two distinct states. There is no illogic about a person being changed from one state to the other - with associated changes taking place.

The Christian view is irrelevant since it calls for a God that changes his creation mid-way after the fact, and seems to do so simply so Christians can side step logical issues and feel better about believing God talks to them.

I'm not quite sure how you figure illogical? Could you actually work it for me rather than simply assert it?

You can say God could install a new six sense, and God being omnipotent he obviously can. But such a view point is highly illogical and as such unlikely.

Ditto

A far more reasonable solution is that you are simply mistaken. This doesn't require the introduction of an illogical God and remains consistent with God's actual design. Of course you don't get to feel you are special, so I imagine such a view will not be that pleasing to you

Ditto

An awful lot of your post hinges on an assertion about logic. Could you tease it out in the language of logic. Or perhaps you simply see it as unreasonable given the model of God you've got going. Which is fair enough, if not compelling - in which case I'd sum up your position based on your earlier answer:

"There is nothing preventing it but it would require God to change us (summation) but I don't find that reasonable according to God as I would model him)"

Is that about right?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

When asked is it possible for God to do as I suggest, a good defence isn't formed by limiting what God could by to what you suppose he would/should do.

Like I said it is possible God could do anything since he is defined as being omnipotent.

The issue is what is likely, not what is possible. You are arguing that the most likely explanation to what you think you are experiencing is that God has given you a sixth sense and is letting you know of his existence. That argument has a number of flaws.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As far as I know, autistics brains don't look different to anyone elses. Pointing to the failure of an embyonic science to detect something says more about the embryonic science than it does anything else.

You need to research a bit better

http://autism.about.com/od/causesofautism/a/AutismBrain.htm

But then this is also missing the point.

God would in all likelihood make this sixth sense detectable and measurable because God has already decided that empirical measurement is the best most accurate way for us to gather knowledge. To not do so would be inconsistent with his own design decisions and as such rather illogical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Only philosophical empiricists limit the field of rationally held knowledge to that evidenced by empirical data. The rest of us accept that there are other ways to knowledge.

The rest of you are wrong, as history demonstrates.

We are the way we are, flaws included. For some reason God is a "philosophical empiricist" If you have issue with that take it up with God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An acceptance that there are multiple ways to knowledge introduces the notion that there are different aspects to ourselves which can interface with knowledge in different ways. Which immediately permits the introduction of a new sense to deal with a what would be new (born again) aspect of ourselves.

Of course it does but then all that is simply an invention of those who wish reality was as they want it to be, not as it is.

"Acceptance" of multiple ways to knowledge is just a fuzzy way of saying wishful thinking. And as I said history is littered with examples of the folly of such thinking. Simply because you would like something to be one way doesn't mean it will be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which the world and his brother generally don't..

The world and his brother generally get things wrong.

Pop into your local bookshop you will find an entire section of popular science books given over to humorous explanation of this phenomena. Or watch a Derren Brown episode. The world and his brother use personal assessment and the world and his brother end up being wrong more often that not.

Like I said, God is a "philosophical empiricist" (don't quite agree with that term but since you introduced it I might as well keep using it since I understand what you mean). If you have issue with that take it up with God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're aware enough of Christian doctrine to know that this one won't fly. Unsaved and enemies with God vs. saved and friend of God are two distinct states. There is no illogic about a person being changed from one state to the other - with associated changes taking place.

Appealing to Christian doctrine is rather pointless since I've no issue with Christian doctrine itself being a heap of illogical nonsense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how you figure illogical? Could you actually work it for me rather than simply assert it?

It is illogical for an omnipotent omniscient being to feel the need to change his initial design mid way through a time line since he would have been aware of such a change when he made the initial design.

He can of course, since he is omnipotent. But that doesn't mean it becomes logical, thus likely, that he will.

And since so much of your argument appeals to logic it is curious you over look this. Like so many Christians before you you seem to imagine God to be a human like person, and ignore that he is not supposed to be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or perhaps you simply see it as unreasonable of the model of God you've got going.

Correct, though it is your model rather than mine. I'm assuming God is omniscient and omnipotent. If you wish for me to consider a different form of god that is fine too.

God being omnipotent I can't say God wouldn't do any of this. But that isn't really the issue is it. Simply because God can do something doesn't mean he will. The issue is what is more likely, God has done this or you are just imagining God has.

The former has too many logical inconsistencies to be worth serious consideration, particularly when we have strong scientific research explaining the later.

But since your over all goal here seems to simply be to find an argument so you can continue to justify your believe that God speaks to you, I imagine you won't find any of that particularly relevant.

robindch

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Is this antiskeptic dude a troll or what? [...] Clearly insane. And no, that's not an insult. I genuinely believe antiskeptic is not right in the head

Carded for insulting another member.

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I'm being serious. Am I not entitled to my belief now? I think there's a problem in antiskeptic's head. It's a statement of what I believe to be true.

You are entitled to your belief, but as with any offensive belief, you should keep it to yourself.

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I'll say no more.

Thanks.