ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old Today, 08:49 AM   #3721
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,671
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
All of science is a refutation of Kantís moral argument. So is all of human experience.
We've already been through this with David in a previous thread, he latches on to a random famous philosopher, digs through until he finds some little piece of linguistic fluff that sounds to him like "Magic is real and you get to make stuff up and anyone who doesn't agree isn't 'enlightened' like you are" and basically elevates them to some sort of all-powerful Anti-Intellectual Savior.

In an earlier thread he was basically... religious style witnessing about Humes, presenting Humes as another of David's "Philosophy says magic is real" authorities he sees in all philosophy even after several people pointed out that was a gross misrepresentation of Humes.

Very, very few of the truly historic philosophers really preached the level of anti-intellectualism woo-woo that David and Tommy see in them but you could show David or Tommy the back page of the Cheesecake Factory menu and they'll see a "Respected Philosopher saying that science doesn't get to tell me I'm wrong and you aren't allowed to disagree and by the way I'm smarter and better than you."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:52 AM   #3722
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,478
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.
And yet again you are wrong.
The point you are deliberately missing is of course that when something contradicts known scientific facts there is no need to carry out the specific investigation you seem so set on. Science has no need to ask about the aerodynamics of Reindeer because the notion of flying Reindeer is nonsense to begin with and it has no need to investigate if there is a god because all actual believed in gods contradict the laws of nature and are right up there with Santa's workshop in the pointless investigations options.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:09 AM   #3723
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,671
Scenario 1: Factor X has a tangible effect on the universe. This puts it under the purview of science as testing that effect to determine the cause is literally what science is on the most basic of levels.

Scenario 2: Factor X has no tangible effect on the universe. Then tt doesn't exist by any meaningful, practical concept of "exist."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:23 AM   #3724
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It is you that have no idea of how scientific journals function.
If you say so. The career I've pursued for thirty years generally requires me to publish in them, which I have. And to read the journals in the several fields my clients practice. But I supposed you must know best.

Quote:
This is why the articles about the existence of God don't enter in scientific reviews. Because no scientific conclusion can be drawn about this subject.
But you have to grossly misrepresent the sciences that do deal with gods in order to say this.

Quote:
This is an enormous absurdity only produced by your ignorance on the issue.
I'm interested. How often does calling everyone else ignorant work for you? And how often does it work when you know practically nothing about the people you're talking to?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:29 AM   #3725
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No science is dedicated to proving or denying that God exists.
You seem to think we won't notice these straw men.

Last edited by JayUtah; Today at 11:07 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:38 AM   #3726
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
It's no different than demanding a scientific paper detailing all the efforts made to prove Santa's workshop isn't at the North Pole, or disproving the existence of flying Reindeer.

It's been page after page of cod philosophy, inventing a definition of 'god' that is unfalsifiable, claiming this constitutes a limit on scientific knowledge and that those who refuse to accept this fictional limit are being dogmatic and are thus no different from religious believers.

It doesn't even possess the merit of being an original strategy.
Good post.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:47 AM   #3727
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.
Some relevant comments:
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue
You're stuck at "Science is not about things I don't agree with science on" and seem unable or unwilling to go beyond that.
Originally Posted by JayUtah
But you have to grossly misrepresent the sciences that do deal with gods in order to say this.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:47 PM   #3728
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
After wading through a slew of papers with distortions of science (example claiming life's complexity is evidence of a designer, it's actually the opposite) and claiming because the Earth is perfect for life is evidence of god (classic scientific error, fitting the evidence to the conclusion) I found out there are indeed many scientific papers on the existence of god.

Many of them hold to the old paradigm that one cannot prove the negative, not an argument for god but theists prefer to think it is.

Here is a discussion along the line Hawking concluded:

According to Science, God Does Not Exist
Quote:
To understand why "God does not exist" is a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When scientist say, "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does on the moon does not exist."

All such statements are shorthand for a more elaborate and technical explanation, which is that this alleged entity (or God) has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.
Answering David's main premise, he needs to see science addressing the existence of god:
Quote:
In "God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity. If God existed, there should be concrete evidence of His existence—not faith, but tangible, measurable, consistent evidence that can be predicted and tested using the scientific method. If we fail to find that evidence, then God cannot exist as defined.
[/thread]
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:00 PM   #3729
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,164
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If you think arguing about the existence of God is a waste of time, what are you doing here?
I think it's a funny topic. I have fun refuting the proofs of God's existence. And now I have discovered that I also have fun refuting scientificist dogmatism.

What is this scientificist bollocks?

We have had posters talking about atheist dogma, are we now to hearing claims that scientific dogma exists? How does this work ...... is there some scripture we can refer to?

Convenient but dodgy way to make an argument that is. Just throw a word at the opposing side and then move on as if you have made a salient point.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.