Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

It IS an old "but what it truth" argument....with the goalposts moved. Only one side is expected to provide proof.

I can't say whether or not my beliefs are likely to be true. I don't need to or want to.

There isn't two sides ! Why have you so much difficulty understanding that ?

You have a hypostasis that God exists - there is no other side .

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

There isn't two sides ! Why have you so much difficulty understanding that ?

You have a hypostasis that God exists - there is no other side .

Are you serious? The hypothesis that God doesn't exist is a figment of my imagination, and has not been put forward on this forum?

Has this whole thread been a hallucination?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Nope, I'm not asking for proof. I've said that several times now, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. I'm beginning to wonder as to the reading ability of so many people here.

Maybe you need to start again and rethink your premise.

Excuse me katy you have continuously demanded proof that God doesn't exist .


I don't have a premise on this issue, you do

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

Which is what I suspected. However, I would put it to you that you cannot think logically about something when the likely logical conclusion is something you simply don't want to accept.

You might as well accept that your religious beliefs are only "true" to you because you so badly want them to be. But then this is probably another truth that you find uncomfortable.

You are confusing logic in the context of religion with the kind of logic that has been discussed here as to proving or disproving hypotheses.

No one is arguing that there is a logical basis to religion - well, I certainly am not. I don't need to think logically about something which doesn't call for logical thought.

How hard is that to grasp?

I don't badly want my beliefs to be true. I just happen to believe them.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Human beings have always explored the unknown, and sought ways to express what they think. Perfectly logical human activity. In many cases it was to explain something they didn't understand, but we now understand. But there's an awful lot we can't explain.

Of course. Which is totally different from a case where there's no evidence the thing exists in the first place, directly or indirectly.

katydid wrote:

Can you explain what knowledge of science I would need to have and what
relevance it would have to the fact that there is no proof of the non-existence
of a deity?

For not the first time allow me to point out that one does not seek to prove a negative. You repeating this over and over will not make it so.

katydid wrote:

As someone with a masters level of education in literature, I have had plenty
exposure to hypotheses and logic.

Yet you seem to have absorbed not even basic principles.

katydid wrote:

I am a Christian. I believe that the deity is a triune entity which manifested itself on earth as human..

Why?

katydid wrote:

I'm pointing out the irony of you requesting proof from me, but not seeming to understand that it works both ways...

Actually, it doesn't.

katydid wrote:

No one is arguing that there is a logical basis to religion - well, I certainly am not....

You referred to "intelligent belief" earlier.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Are you serious? The hypothesis that God doesn't exist is a figment of my imagination, and has not been put forward on this forum?

Has this whole thread been a hallucination?

No it hasn't been put forward as a hypostasis , other than in relation to you demanding proof of it.

The only thing even remotely like that is the notion that according to the knowledge that we have today there is no evidence that God exists , that is all .

And by the way this implicitly accepts that if such evidence does become available then the position will take account of it and change.

robindch

I believe katy could be a postmodernist script:

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

Dada wrote:

1. Expressions of absurdity

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. The primary theme of Parry’s[1] model of dialectic neocapitalist theory is the role of the artist as reader. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a pretextual socialism that includes art as a reality.

Von Ludwig[2] suggests that we have to choose between posttextual discourse and modern capitalism. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic neocapitalist theory that includes truth as a paradox.

Sontag suggests the use of pretextual socialism to challenge class divisions. However, many theories concerning postsemanticist cultural theory exist.

If Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between postsemanticist cultural theory and presemanticist narrative. In a sense, Foucault promotes the use of capitalist neocultural theory to read and deconstruct sexual identity.

etc, etc, etc.

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

You are confusing logic in the context of religion with the kind of logic that has been discussed here as to proving or disproving hypotheses.

No one is arguing that there is a logical basis to religion - well, I certainly am not. I don't need to think logically about something which doesn't call for logical thought.

How hard is that to grasp?

I don't badly want my beliefs to be true. I just happen to believe them.

What I don't understand is how you can declare something to be exempt from logic, as if logic was somehow optional. Everything we think about, every belief, requires some kind of logic. In fact theology is full of its own weird logic too. For example, the RCC opposition to (say) contraception is based on a sort of weird logic.

If your belief does not require logic, then how on earth did you find that belief while dismissing other beliefs? Surely the thought process that you used to decide that Anglicanism was for you had some basic logic to it?

Or was it simply a case of "this feels right so it is right", which is fair enough, but hardly more justifiable than believing in Santa Claus or Thor.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

But I'm not the dismissing the other's BELIEF...

But my belief is that you are utterly wrong about everything important.

That's my sincere (and, even if I say so myself, extremely well founded) belief.

You wouldn't want to diss my beliefs about God, now, would you?

smacl

katydid wrote: »

In my books, the only "religions" that don't deserve respect are ones that are founded or maintained for other purposes, such as exploitation, mind control and/or financial profit. "Religions" such as Scientology.

So where does Islam sit in this mix? I'm thinking specifically here of the likes of Raif Badawi who received the first fifty of his thousand lashes a few weeks ago for blasphemy. I might have slightly more respect for Islam if the vast majority of Imams were to condemn this, but they're largely either silent or supportive.

The Catholic church hardly comes away unscathed either, with their stance against condoms being regularly cited as a major contributor to the spread of AIDS in Africa, and the untold death and misery that has caused. And of course the many sexual abuse scandals and attempted cover-ups in recent years.

From my own standpoint, most organised religions are involved in exploitation and mind control to a greater or lesser degree, and are not deserving of our respect. At the same time, many of the individual practitioners through their own charitable actions are.

As for mind control, my take on Christianity is that it uses sex, death and fear to control the masses. People are driven by their lust, the Christian church regulates when people can have sex, and exerts control in that manner. Similarly, people are terrified of death, so the church tells them if they tow the line, they'll have an everlasting afterlife of happiness. Of course God above is always watching them, so if they step out of line, once they die, they're straight to the pit for eternal torture.

So my take on Christianity; An unpleasant cult that seeks to manipulate the masses using fear, death and sex. YMMV.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

I can't say whether or not my beliefs are likely to be true. I don't need to or want to.

And if someone says he's a Muslim, and his god has instructed him to kill all Anglicans in a holy war, well, it doesn't matter if that's true either.

And if your daughter runs off to join the Scientologists, hey, no biggie, whatever you are into.

Religion is just like picking out wallpaper.

Defender OF Faith

marienbad wrote: »

Well the obvious gap in your knowledge is that you have no idea what the 'scientific method' is or how it works.

Otherwise you would stop requesting proof for the non existence of something .

Science is based on a theory of knowledge called Empiricism. Empiricism stems from the idea that you can only have knowledge of something from experience based on direct or indirect observation.*1) An empirical rejection of God is impossible as it requires evidence from observation to form conclusions. To deny something that cannot be observed, by using the theory of knowledge that can only form conclusions based on observations, is absurd. The scientific world can never deny God’s existence because science can only deal with things that you can observe. This is why the philosopher of science Elliot Sober, in his essay Empiricism asserts that science is limited to questions which observation can explain,
“At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”*
God is not observed. How can you use the observed world to deny that which cannot be observed? It’s impossible. This is why science can never directly reject God’s existence. It can only do one of two things:

1. Stay silent on the matter
2. Suggest some evidence that can be used to infer His existence

*1:Elliot Sober “Empiricism” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Edited by Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd. 2010, p. 129.
*Ibid, pp. 137-138

Mod Note: The original text can be found here. http://www.islam21c.com/theology/does-one-need-to-prove-the-existence-of-god/
Edit: Actual text Quoted from: http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/denying-god-denying-reality-dont-need-evidence-gods-existence

Shrap

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

“At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”*
God is not observed. How can you use the observed world to deny that which cannot be observed? It’s impossible. This is why science can never directly reject God’s existence. It can only do one of two things:

1. Stay silent on the matter
2. Suggest some evidence that can be used to infer His existence

Well, yes. Which is why it is much more logical not to believe in any god. Otherwise what you believe in is only your belief, with no evidence. Obviously (pun intended).

If your belief gives you comfort, fine. But it is not for those with the more logical outlook to prove that those with the less logical outlook are wrong, or indeed provide some way in which they should measure their proof. Since people with the less logical outlook, believing in a higher power that cannot be measured or observed, determine that other people should live according to their illogical beliefs, surely it behoves them to provide some proof or even a way that they measure the veracity of their belief?

Turtwig

Mod:

This will be your only verbal warning.

This is plagiarism. You copied this entire post verbatim from here.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Science is based on a theory of knowledge called Empiricism.. ..

Defender OF Faith

Shrap wrote: »

Well, yes. Which is why it is much more logical not to believe in any god. Otherwise what you believe in is only your belief, with no evidence. Obviously (pun intended).

If your belief gives you comfort, fine. But it is not for those with the more logical outlook to prove that those with the less logical outlook are wrong, or indeed provide some way in which they should measure their proof. Since people with the less logical outlook, believing in a higher power that cannot be measured or observed, determine that other people should live according to their illogical beliefs, surely it behoves them to provide some proof or even a way that they measure the veracity of their belief?

I would argue otherwise and say that a rejection of a Creator or cause for this universe is the illogical belief, there are many logical inferences as to why a Creator exist but 0 as to why he doesn't. The idea of religion being a human creation does not effect the arguments pertaining the existence of a Creator or Cause and hence are irrelevant. What I Quoted was directing at people who believe and say that "Science will/can prove the non-existence of a Creator" and those who claim with certainty the non-existence of a Creator

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I would argue otherwise and say that

You would argue it? Great, by all means do so. Because I think we can agree that in the post above you did not argue it, so much as simply assert it and leave it hanging. Something that, alas, we are all too used to here in this forum from theists, all too often followed by the tactic of "Proof of assertion by repetition of that assertion".

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would argue it? Great, by all means do so. Because I think we can agree that in the post above you did not argue it, so much as simply assert it and leave it hanging. Something that, alas, we are all too used to here in this forum from theists, all too often followed by the tactic of "Proof of assertion by repetition of that assertion".

As I mentioned as to what I Quoted was directed to those who claim with certainty that a Creator does not exist basing their argument on science, it was not an attempt to prove/disprove anything until Sharp spoke about a belief in the non-existence of a Creator being more logical then a belief in his existence, that resulted in my subsequent statement.

magicbastarder

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

what I Quoted was directed to those who claim with certainty that a Creator does not exist

you're arguing against an empty room so.

swampgas

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

As I mentioned as to what I Quoted was directed to those who claim with certainty that a Creator does not exist basing their argument on science, it was not an attempt to prove/disprove anything until Sharp spoke about a belief in the non-existence of a Creator being more logical then a belief in his existence, that resulted in my subsequent statement.

If you're claiming that an invisible, undetectable, non-interactive deity exists, the burden of proof is on you.

There are all sorts of other invisible, undetectable, non-interactive entities that can be imagined, we can't prove they don't exist either.

Surely the whole point is that if a god really existed, and was interacting with people in a demonstrable way, we wouldn't ever have to discuss it - it would simply be accepted as a fact?

Defender OF Faith

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're arguing against an empty room so.

marienbad wrote: »

Otherwise you would stop requesting proof for the non existence of something .

This appears to be a statement which was the product of certainty.

swampgas wrote: »

If you're claiming that an invisible, undetectable, non-interactive deity exists, the burden of proof is on you.

There are all sorts of other invisible, undetectable, non-interactive entities that can be imagined, we can't prove they don't exist either.

Surely the whole point is that if a god really existed, and was interacting with people in a demonstrable way, we wouldn't ever have to discuss it - it would simply be accepted as a fact?

Your comparing a Creator or a Cause to what am assuming "All sorts of other invisible undetectable entities" such as tooth fairies is a faulty comparison as your comparing one entity to another that are not related. Review the first objection in the article the Mod had provided.
As an atheist why did you assume that this Creator was interacting with his Creation? this appears to be an assumption made on your part and is irrelevant to the arguments pertaining the existence of a Creator and Cause.

magicbastarder

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This appears to be a statement which was the product of certainty.

it's not a comment in any way on whether marienbad is utterly sure about the existence of god.

swampgas

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your comparing a Creator or a Cause to what am assuming "All sorts of other invisible undetectable entities" such as tooth fairies is a faulty comparison as your comparing one entity to another that are not related. Review the first objection in the article the Mod had provided.
As an atheist why did you assume that this Creator was interacting with his
Creation? this appears to be an assumption made on your part and is irrelevant to the arguments pertaining the existence of a Creator and Cause.

Hold on - you can't just wade in assuming that a "Creator" exists. That hasn't been demonstrated at all. Anyhow, we have drifted far, far, far away from the original topic here. If you want to go back to debating the basics of the existence of a god or gods, probably better to start a separate thread on it.

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This appears to be a statement which was the product of certainty.

Not so , it is a summation of the extent of our knowledge right now . As it stands we have zero evidence of a creator . If such knowledge does become available it will be factored in to the account.

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

it was not an attempt to prove/disprove anything

You clearly said you would argue that a given position was illogical. I merely invited you to actually do so, given you just said you would. Now apparently you won't. Getting mixed signals now.

Defender OF Faith

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not a comment in any way on whether marienbad is utterly sure about the existence of god.

I apologise then for my faulty assumption

marienbad wrote: »

Not so , it is a summation of the extent of our knowledge right now . As it stands we have zero evidence of a creator . If such knowledge does become available it will be factored in to the account.

As I have quoted the knowledge of science will never be able to speak about the existence and non-existence of a Creator, it's up to you to use the laws of this universe Logic & rational to arrive at this point.

swampgas wrote: »

Hold on - you can't just wade in assuming that a "Creator" exists. That hasn't been demonstrated at all. Anyhow, we have drifted far, far, far away from the original topic here. If you want to go back to debating the basics of the existence of a god or gods, probably better to start a separate thread on it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You clearly said you would argue that a given position was illogical. I merely invited you to actually do so, given you just said you would. Now apparently you won't. Getting mixed signals now.

Thank you for the invitation, I didn't think this thread was ideal for debating the arguments and proof for the existence of a Creator as Swampg. rightly stated as one is already present in the Christianity foru.

nozzferrahhtoo

So quite simply when you said you would argue it, you actually mean you wouldn't. Got it. Forgive me if I file you with the rest of the theists we get here then Nothing new. Had my hopes up for a moment.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So quite simply when you said you would argue it, you actually mean you wouldn't. Got it. Forgive me if I file you with the rest of the theists we get here then Nothing new. Had my hopes up for a moment.

Our dear friend sharp have stated that
"Well, yes. Which is why it is much more logical not to believe in any god"
I mentioned that I would actually argue otherwise and that a belief in a creator is more logical and rational then a belief in no creator, it was a statement of disagreement on my part with prior knowledge that this thread is not appropriate to delve in deeper into the subject, as a more appropriate thread is already in place.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am aware of your statement, I do not need it repeated. I am also aware the opposite of the statement is true. You said you would argue it, I invited you to do so, you have now refused to do so.

I guess I come from a naive group of people who not only mean what they say, but assume other people do too.

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

As I have quoted the knowledge of science will never be able to speak about the existence and non-existence of a Creator, it's up to you to use the laws of this universe Logic & rational to arrive at this point.

.

How do you know ? And the understanding of the laws of this universe is science

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am aware of your statement, I do not need it repeated. I am also aware the opposite of the statement is true. You said you would argue it, I invited you to do so, you have now refused to do so.

swampgas wrote: »

Anyhow, we have drifted far, far, far away from the original topic here. If you want to go back to debating the basics of the existence of a god or gods, probably better to start a separate thread on it.

This is why I didn't think accepting your invitation was appropriate.

PopePalpatine

Someone here hasn't heard of Russell's Teapot.

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This is why I didn't think accepting your invitation was appropriate.

Firstly I never said it had to be on this thread. I merely invited you to follow through with the claim you made which is now, it seems, a false one.

Secondly if you would not argue a point, then be honest and do not declare you would.

Simples.

Defender OF Faith

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Someone here hasn't heard of Russell's Teapot.

In all honesty I haven't but from a quick Wikipedia search this is what I arrived at:
Russel teapot analogy is:
" that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others"
Review all my post so far, I never asked nor attempted to shift the burden of Proof, I was merely stating based on misunderstanding a posters comment that you cannot claim with certainty a Creator does not exist nor science can.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly I never said it had to be on this thread. I merely invited you to follow through with the claim you made which is now, it seems, a false one.

Secondly if you would not argue a point, then be honest and do not declare you would.

Simples.

Great then, which is why I invited you to discuss this in the already existing thread in the Christianity forum regarding the existence of a Creator ~

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Great then, which is why I invited you to discuss this in the already existing thread in the Christianity forum regarding the existence of a Creator

You first. It is you that said you would argue the point. Go about arguing it then. That is all I have asked you to do you will notice.

As I am not currently reading that forum you may wish to inform me when it is done.

silverharp

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Our dear friend sharp have stated that
"Well, yes. Which is why it is much more logical not to believe in any god"
I mentioned that I would actually argue otherwise and that a belief in a creator is more logical and rational then a belief in no creator, it was a statement of disagreement on my part with prior knowledge that this thread is not appropriate to delve in deeper into the subject, as a more appropriate thread is already in place.

As of now soneones answer either way is meaningless as it can't be tested. It sill doesn't give any help in suggesting that any religion on earth is other than primitive society's man made construction.

Shrap

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Our dear friend sharp have stated that
"Well, yes. Which is why it is much more logical not to believe in any god"
I mentioned that I would actually argue otherwise and that a belief in a creator is more logical and rational then a belief in no creator

It's perfectly fair to disagree with that statement if you can provide proof that believing in a god is more logical. I assert that because science doesn't require belief as we only know what we can prove, it is a more logical position than to believe in something that you cannot see, prove or in any way measure.

Katydid at least was arguing that her belief does not require logic. I would say that it is illogical.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/logic
Definition of logic in English:
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
1Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

Shrap

silverharp wrote: »

As of now soneones answer either way is meaningless as it can't be tested.

I think it is more meaningful to say "I don't know" than it is to say "I believe, but I cannot prove".

smacl

Shrap wrote: »

I think it is more meaningful to say "I don't know" than it is to say "I believe, but I cannot prove".

Yup. Although you could also say that the likelihood of correctly selecting the one real deity from an infinite list of other imaginary deities is infinitesimal. This is why I consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. The likelihood of any unprovable imagined creation theory being true is entirely negligible until such time as it is evidenced.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

Excuse me katy you have continuously demanded proof that God doesn't exist .


I don't have a premise on this issue, you do

No, I have continuously pointed out that those who claim that they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist are very coy when it is pointed out that they don't provide proof he doesn't exist.

I don't care one way or the other, I just find the irony amusing.

Defender OF Faith

Shrap wrote: »

It's perfectly fair to disagree with that statement if you can provide proof that believing in a god is more logical. I assert that because science doesn't require belief as we only know what we can prove, it is a more logical position than to believe in something that you cannot see, prove or in any way measure.

Katydid at least was arguing that her belief does not require logic. I would say that it is illogical.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/logic
Definition of logic in English:
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
1Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

Yes of course, the reason I didn't argue is because the topic of the thread does not facilitate such an argument there's another thread for that, however as you stated the fact that we "Only know what we can prove" leaves many questions answered that can only be explained through an existence of a Creator and Cause.

God’s existence, explains conscious emergence, the fact that we have consciousness within a material world.[3] It answers the questions for which we have no answer, like the question of language. Currently, evolutionary paradigms can’t explain the development of language.[4]It also explains the existence of objective moral truths and offers a foundation for explaining why things happen.
Let’s apply this to another self-evident truth: the validity of our reasoning. Trusting our minds and the very fact that we can reason to the truth is a basic belief. If we did not hold such a belief then how could we trust our minds? How could we reason to the truth? How could we understand the universe and ourselves? These questions are indicative of the foundational nature of the validity of our reasoning.
God’s existence provides a foundation for a coherent world view, facilitates knowledge and answers key fundamental questions. A belief in the spaghetti monster or the belief in the great pumpkin, only provides the foundation for a few laughs.

*http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/denying-god-denying-reality-dont-need-evidence-gods-existence & http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/consciousness-and-the-new-scientist-magazine-reflections-on-false-materialist-assumptions-hamza-tzortzis

I already began an argument pertaining the existence of a Creator in "God existence thread" found in the Christianity forum post # 108 which your invited to read and discuss.

Shrap

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

however as you stated the fact that we "Only know what we can prove" leaves many questions UNanswered that can only be explained through an existence of a Creator and Cause.

Not at all, and that is where your logic falls down I'm afraid (and I think you meant unanswered...)! You cannot logically say that the unanswered questions can be explained through an existence of a god when so far, to all human knowledge, NO answers have been explained through an existence of a god. Why should we not imagine that all the upcoming answers to unanswered questions will be explained through scientific understanding and empirical evidence, since this is the way questions have been answered (with proof) as to our existence, etc. thusfar?

It is safer to say "we don't know yet" than "it must be god". One of those is a logical position based on the evidence.

Defender OF Faith

Shrap wrote: »

Not at all, and that is where your logic falls down I'm afraid (and I think you meant unanswered...)! You cannot logically say that the unanswered questions can be explained through an existence of a god when so far, to all human knowledge, NO answers have been explained through an existence of a god. Why should we not imagine that all the upcoming answers to unanswered questions will be explained through scientific understanding and empirical evidence, since this is the way questions have been answered (with proof) as to our existence, etc. thusfar?

Yes your right thanks for correcting my type.

First we need to understand the nature of these "Unanswered questions" Quoted from my last post:

....God’s existence, explains conscious emergence, the fact that we have consciousness within a material world.[3] It answers the questions for which we have no answer, like the question of language. Currently, evolutionary paradigms can’t explain the development of language.[4]It also explains the existence of objective moral truths and offers a foundation for explaining why things happen.
Let’s apply this to another self-evident truth: the validity of our reasoning. Trusting our minds and the very fact that we can reason to the truth is a basic belief. If we did not hold such a belief then how could we trust our minds? How could we reason to the truth? How could we understand the universe and ourselves? These questions are indicative of the foundational nature of the validity of our reasoning.
God’s existence provides a foundation for a coherent world view, facilitates knowledge and answers key fundamental questions. A belief in the spaghetti monster or the belief in the great pumpkin, only provides the foundation for a few laughs....

These questions science will never be able to answer and the only logical explanation/ The best explanation for such questions is the existence of a Creator.

Questions in the realm of science will be answered eventually once we advance further in further in the field, but we can only theorise and use our logic and rational to answer questions outside this realm.

Sources:
http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/denying-god-denying-reality-dont-need-evidence-gods-existence
http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/consciousness-and-the-new-scientist-magazine-reflections-on-false-materialist-assumptions-hamza-tzortzis

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

No, I have continuously pointed out that those who claim that they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist are very coy when it is pointed out that they don't provide proof he doesn't exist.

I don't care one way or the other, I just find the irony amusing.

You still don't get it do you ? Just read that sentence you wrote - 'they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist '--'they don't provide proof he doesn't exist'

Don't you see how utterly silly these statements are ? Do you go through life proving things don't exist ?

It seems you don't know the difference between faith and facts .

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

the topic of the thread does not facilitate such an argument

No one of note is complaining. And I note when I called you out on your claim you would argue the point, one of the "thanks" on my post is from the forum moderator. So seems fine to me. Where does respect for religion start and stop? Well my respect starts with people who substantiate their positions. It stops with people who find ways to dodge doing so.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

the fact that we "Only know what we can prove" leaves many questions answered that can only be explained through an existence of a Creator and Cause.

Funny how your refusal to actually defend or argue your points somehow does not stop you asserting them all the same. A concern for the thread topic seems to prevent you defending your positions, but not soap boxing and asserting them. How very convenient for you.

However you are engaged in a fallacy here where you are suggesting that because there is only one explanation on offer to you, it must therefore be the only on that can explain it.

Take this imaginary conversation between two young boys for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork bring them
Boy1: How do you know that?
Boy2: Well do you know where they come from?
Boy1: No I do not.
Boy2: Ah! See! Therefore it can only be explained by the stork.

Clearly the boy2 is making the same fallacious argument you are: Which is that just because both of them are only aware of one explanation, it must therefore be the only one that can explain it.

Actually we have many theories and hypotheses.... but even if we did not.... you would still be making the boy2 fallacy.

smacl

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

These questions science will never be able to answer and the only logical explanation/ The best explanation for such questions is the existence of a Creator.

This is a God of the gaps argument typically used by creationists, ID folk, and various fundamentalists. It is well understood and generally considered a fallacy by both theologians and the scientific community. (Nice to see them agreeing on something )

silverharp

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Yes your right thanks for correcting my type.

First we need to understand the nature of these "Unanswered questions" Quoted from my last post:


These questions science will never be able to answer and the only logical explanation/ The best explanation for such questions is the existence of a Creator.

Questions in the realm of science will be answered eventually once we advance further in further in the field, but we can only theorise and use our logic and rational to answer questions outside this realm.

it doesnt matter , what if the creator is an alien/god that can flick a switch and create a universe but leaves it at that. we are not asked to do or believe anything. There is no evidence that a god has made itsself known to us. You might as well argue that because there "must" be life on other planets that anyone who believes in any particular instance "flying saucers" is being more logical

magicbastarder

katydid wrote: »

No, I have continuously pointed out that those who claim that they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist are very coy when it is pointed out that they don't provide proof he doesn't exist.

just before i possibly (mistakenly) take you seriously on this - are you being serious?

swampgas

katydid wrote: »

No, I have continuously pointed out that those who claim that they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist are very coy when it is pointed out that they don't provide proof he doesn't exist.

I don't care one way or the other, I just find the irony amusing.

To be brutally honest with you, I think the irony of the situation is whizzing by over your head.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No one of note is complaining. And I note when I called you out on your claim you would argue the point, one of the "thanks" on my post is from the forum moderator. So seems fine to me. Where does respect for religion start and stop? Well my respect starts with people who substantiate their positions. It stops with people who find ways to dodge doing so.



Funny how your refusal to actually defend or argue your points somehow does not stop you asserting them all the same. A concern for the thread topic seems to prevent you defending your positions, but not soap boxing and asserting them. How very convenient for you.

However you are engaged in a fallacy here where you are suggesting that because there is only one explanation on offer to you, it must therefore be the only on that can explain it.

Take this imaginary conversation between two young boys for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork bring them
Boy1: How do you know that?
Boy2: Well do you know where they come from?
Boy1: No I do not.
Boy2: Ah! See! Therefore it can only be explained by the stork.

Clearly the boy2 is making the same fallacious argument you are: Which is that just because both of them are only aware of one explanation, it must therefore be the only one that can explain it.

Actually we have many theories and hypotheses.... but even if we did not.... you would still be making the boy2 fallacy.

smacl wrote: »

This is a God of the gaps argument typically used by creationists, ID folk, and various fundamentalists. It is well understood and generally considered a fallacy by both theologians and the scientific community. (Nice to see them agreeing on something )

silverharp wrote: »

it doesnt matter , what if the creator is an alien/god that can flick a switch and create a universe but leaves it at that. we are not asked to do or believe anything. There is no evidence that a god has made itsself known to us. You might as well argue that because there "must" be life on other planets that anyone who believes in any particular instance "flying saucers" is being more logical

I will respond to these comments in due time the following thread designated for the debate, for those interested to continue the discussion: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057359817

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

No, I have continuously pointed out that those who claim that they don't need proof to know that God doesn't exist are very coy when it is pointed out that they don't provide proof he doesn't exist.

I don't care one way or the other, I just find the irony amusing.

There is no irony. The notion that one has to prove a negative is a fallacy.