Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Creating God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    You're still missing the point, you dunce. The scientific method can not be arrived at through scientific induction, so on what basis do you accept it as a suitable means for acquiring knowledge? You seem to be wholly ignorant of the philosophy of science and the abstract nature of epistemology.

    As for the disciplines of theology and philosophy, to say there is no way to test their truths is false. We use logic and reason to determine if a belief is internally consistent, and observation to determine if it is consistent with the universe around us. Which, if you think about it, is much the same as the application of the scientific method.

    But before you can even get out of the epistemological starting gate, you have to accept without proof that logic and reason can lead to true beliefs. Which is to say that every worldview ultimately starts with an unprovable assumption that is nevertheless rational to accept as true in and of itself.

    Do you get it now? Or do you need it explained to you using crayons?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      You're still missing the point, you dunce. The scientific method can not be arrived at through scientific induction, so on what basis do you accept it as a suitable means for acquiring knowledge? You seem to be wholly ignorant of the philosophy of science and the abstract nature of epistemology.
      There is nothing “abstract” about science. Science is the acquisition of knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses, and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can also make predictions.

      As for the disciplines of theology and philosophy, to say there is no way to test their truths is false. We use logic and reason to determine if a belief is internally consistent, and observation to determine if it is consistent with the universe around us.
      Certainly philosophy and logic can hold the scientific structure together, ensure its self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference. But they do not, and cannot, investigate new truths about nature. This is the role of science.

      Which, if you think about it, is much the same as the application of the scientific method.
      Indeed, as far as it goes. But theology and philosophy alone have no means of verifying their “truths”... unlike science, which can and does with sufficient certainly it can put a man on the moon.

      But before you can even get out of the epistemological starting gate, you have to accept without proof that logic and reason can lead to true beliefs. Which is to say that every worldview ultimately starts with an unprovable assumption that is nevertheless rational to accept as true in and of itself.
      The scientific worldview does NOT accept there are assumptions that are rational to accept as true. This is the point. Science investigates and seek empirical verification for such assumptions. Science has the means to do this whereas philosophy and theology do not...except as an academic argument.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
        There is nothing “abstract” about science.
        I didn't say there was. I said that epistemology is abstract. You do know what epistemology is, don't you?

        Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
        The scientific worldview does NOT accept there are assumptions that are rational to accept as true.
        OK then, let's see a logical argument that concludes with "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts" without begging the question.

        Hop to it!
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


          OK then, let's see a logical argument that concludes with "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts" without begging the question.
          Been there, done that. Better still; let's see a logical argument that concludes with Therefore, reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts based upon the premise of a divine entity, without begging the question.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
            Been there, done that.
            Nope. You've done everything but present a formal argument, and I'm pretty sure we both know why. I'm just curious if you're intellectually honest enough to openly admit it.

            P1 ...
            P2 ...
            P3 ...
            ...
            C "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts."

            That's all I'm asking for. You say it's not assumed, so this should be a trivial exercise for you. Either add the necessary premises, or concede the point.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Nope. You've done everything but present a formal argument, and I'm pretty sure we both know why. I'm just curious if you're intellectually honest enough to openly admit it.

              P1 ...
              P2 ...
              P3 ...
              ...
              C "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts."

              That's all I'm asking for. You say it's not assumed, so this should be a trivial exercise for you. Either add the necessary premises, or concede the point.
              I've already established the validity of reasoning and evidence in establishing verifiable facts in the physical sciences; this is demonstrably the case. OTOH you have been unable to establish verifiable facts based upon the assumed premise of a divine entity.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                I've already established the validity of reasoning and evidence in establishing verifiable facts in the physical sciences; this is demonstrably the case.
                No, you begged the question and played rhetorical merry-go-round with an assertion that essentially said, "Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts because it can," which, to be fair, is really all you can do when dealing with a properly basic belief, and that's my point. You can build on to a properly basic belief in a logical manner, but the properly basic belief itself must simply be assumed to be true. To put it another way, the scientific method can not be used to establish the validity of the scientific method, which is what you're trying to do.

                I'll take your refusal to even attempt to present your assertion as a formal argument to be an implicit concession of this point.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No, you begged the question and played rhetorical merry-go-round with an assertion that essentially said, "Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts because it can,"
                  It can and does, so a rhetorical argument is redundant. We know what science can do. When it comes to science, “reasoning and evidence” establishes empirical verifiable facts. We don’t need a philosophical argument to tell us this.

                  which, to be fair, is really all you can do when dealing with a properly basic belief, and that's my point. You can build on to a properly basic belief in a logical manner, but the properly basic belief itself must simply be assumed to be true.
                  No assumptions are necessary. Unlike your unverifiable assumption of a properly basic belief, scientific premises are grounded in physical evidence and empirically tested and verified resulting in the development of technology and other benefits.

                  To put it another way, the scientific method can not be used to establish the validity of the scientific method, which is what you're trying to do.
                  It does not need to establish the validity of the scientific method. The scientific method, unlike your assumed basic belief, is established as valid by its practical applications. It works.

                  I’ll leave the purely academic arguments to those who have nothing else to support their position.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    First you say that "No assumptions are necessary" to establish the validity of the scientific method, and then you run around in rhetorical circles with an argument that essentially says, "We know it works because we know it works," which is a big, fat begged question based on an assumption.

                    The fact that you're apparently too dense to realize this and sneeringly handwave away other properly basic beliefs is rather hilarious.

                    Tell me, is it rational to believe you didn't murder someone this morning simply because you have no memory of doing so? Hmmm.... I wonder what Tassmoron would say... "The scientific method, unlike your assumed basic belief [that you didn't murder someone this morning], is established as valid by its practical applications." So according to your own reasoning, the belief that you didn't murder someone simply because you don't remember doing so is invalid because it lacks "practical applications". One might even suggest that it's irrational "blind faith". In that case, I expect you to turn yourself in to the police.

                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      First you say that "No assumptions are necessary" to establish the validity of the scientific method, and then you run around in rhetorical circles with an argument that essentially says, "We know it works because we know it works," which is a big, fat begged question based on an assumption.
                      No assumptions are necessary. The Scientific Method is based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can also make predictions. These theories are then reinforced (or rejected) by continuing experiments from which further technologies and theories can develop. In short, scientific methodology is based on verifiable evidence-based premises, unlike your unverifiable assumptions of 'properly basic beliefs'.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                        In short, scientific methodology is based on verifiable evidence-based premises...
                        In other words, "We know it works because we know it works." <-- Logical fallacy!

                        Keep chasing your tail, kiddo. Maybe you'll catch it one day.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          In other words, "We know it works because we know it works." <-- Logical fallacy!


                          We know it works because we have demonstrable, empirically verified evidence of it working.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            It's very simple: if God exists, then you don't need to explain why people believe he does, because it's a given.
                            No...this is not sound reasoning. There are many reasons a person may have for believing something exists - whether it exists or not. They may believe on the evidence of their senses. They may believe due to a reasoned argument. They may believe due to an appeal to authority. There is not "one reason" for believing in something - whether it exists or not.

                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The only reason you would need a sociological explanation for belief in God is if you start with the presumption that he doesn't exist.
                            Not in the least. Let's break this down as follows:
                            • A thing can exist or not exist
                            • A thing can be evident to our senses or not evident to our senses.


                            Putting these together, we have four possibilities. One of them is "god exists and is not evident to our senses." If your god exists, he is of this class to me. He is of this class to many people. Some of them are Christians (as well as other faiths). I suspect he is of this class to you (unless you can say you have had a personal experience of this being that involved one or more of your five senses). Belief then could actually be rooted in sociological explanations. It could also be rooted in rational argumentation.

                            However, there is nothing about this article that necessitates "god does not exist" as a starting point.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-27-2018, 12:33 PM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Those of you who know me reasonably well know that I listen to a lot of podcasts. I pretty much always have an earbud in my ear as I work, drive, eat, etc. It comes out only when I am engaged with others socially. Today I was listening as I drove home, and this came on. The podcast is about a paper that looks at the patterns of emergence of religions in history. It suggests that religions of small groups, both in the distant past and in modern times (i.e., aboriginal tribes) tend to "trickster" gods, animal totems, etc. But as groups begin to grow, the religions begin to change - and they begin to develop "punisher gods."

                              The authors theorize that what is happening can be explained by looking at trust and cohesion within the group. When groups are small, everyone knows everyone else and that familiarity makes it difficult for any one person to deceive the group or take advantage of them. But when the group grows to a point where everyone cannot possibly know everyone else, it becomes more possible for rogue elements to join the group (or arise within the group) and for them to take advantage of some or all of the group. The evolutionary response to this is the development of a religion focused on a "punisher god" that helps to restore cohesion to the group. They cite multiple parallel studies that provide some evidence for this theory.
                              These would be difficult assertions to prove. In my experience, as soon as a theorist starts to try to categorize religions in broad strokes to support specific theories, then they are losing from the get go. I rarely see reflections of exactly how limited our information is--do they mean hunter-gather tribes everywhere at all times shared the same sets of ideas? The same "trickster" gods? These Campbellian rubrics really do a disservice to the wide variety of belief even in animism.

                              I'm skeptical.

                              fwiw,
                              guacamole
                              "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                              Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                              Save me, save me"

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                The authors theorize that what is happening can be explained by looking at trust and cohesion within the group. When groups are small, everyone knows everyone else and that familiarity makes it difficult for any one person to deceive the group or take advantage of them. But when the group grows to a point where everyone cannot possibly know everyone else, it becomes more possible for rogue elements to join the group (or arise within the group) and for them to take advantage of some or all of the group. The evolutionary response to this is the development of a religion focused on a "punisher god" that helps to restore cohesion to the group. They cite multiple parallel studies that provide some evidence for this theory.
                                It would seem the small group non-punishing God and large group punishing God findings could be explained by a lack of adequate noetic capacity in the older groups to comprehend more complex moral situations. As cultures became more complex and intellectual abilities developed higher moral capacities, God revealed more of His call to higher standards of moral discipline. The notion of punishment is arguably just a caution to avoid the consequences of a fallen nature leads us into. According to the linked article, this idea from the Christian side of the fence fits well with Shariff's notion of punishment as, "...an effective stick to deter people from immoral behavior". This suggests to me that God knows what He's doing.

                                Thus, the force of "supernatural punisher" as God actually making more of Himself known to humanity would naturally play out in minds whose intent and motivation is to find non-supernatural explanations, in the form of static, evolution-based arguments. That Christianity and other religions still largely see God's wrath as "punishment" rather than the loving cleansing it actually is suggests more revelation of His nature is forthcoming.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X