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 22nd October 2018, 12:30 AM   #121
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Only if you keep asking the wrong question.

Wrong question because there is no evidence to base the hypothesis on: Do gods exist?

Logical question based on over whelming observable evidence, what explains god beliefs?
you're philosophizing again.

There is no known scientific test that can determine whether any gods exist.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 22nd October 2018, 01:04 AM   #122
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,209
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

Not even one of those many Hindu deities? How could he know that?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 22nd October 2018, 01:17 AM   #123
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,177
Hawking must has solved the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything - and it didn't have any deities in it.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 22nd October 2018, 04:46 AM   #124
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
You'd have a devil of a time proving or disproving the existence of a Gnostic-style god: a force without personality or will that exists outside the universe and never interacts with it. Fortunately for the tidy-minded there is no difference in impact if such a god exists or doesn't, the results are exactly the same, so nobody need bother with it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 05:07 AM   #125
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I regret to say that you are like Molière's Bourgeois gentilhomme, who spoke in prose and did not know it. You are doing philosophy, as much as it kills you.

The existence of God is not studied in the faculties of physics, astronomy, biology, etc. It is studied in the faculties of theology and in some chairs of philosophy.
There is not a single respectable journal of science that has published a single article dedicated to prove or refute the existence of God. Do you know any? Can you say any theorem or physical law that talks about this subject?
A strange scientific subject that is not studied in science faculties or specialized journals.

The problem is that you are so philosophobic that you do not see what is before you. The existence of God is a philosophical problem and atheism is a philosophical issue. You are making philosophy. You will have to confess to your scientist confessor.
Not according to the those that believe in the god of the Jews, The Muslims, the Christians. They are gods that by their own claims are meant to interact with the world and have definite properties that can be "tested" by the "scientific method".

What you are babbling about is one of these definition of a god that no one actually believes in so totally and utterly unrelated to the god the believers say they believe in. It is just plain confusing to use the same word for different things.

Zeus was a god that many people believed in. The people that believed in him had a certain definition, one part of that definition was that he lived in a palace on mt Olympus, and please note not an invisible palace, not a palace that mortals could not access but an actual palace like a king or emperor of the time lived in. We know no such palace exists on Mt Olympus therefore Zeus as the god his believers believed in does not exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 05:36 AM   #126
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
If you want to maintain belief in a god who has never taken any actions in regards to our universe, you are free to do so.
However, once you claim god created the universe, it is YOU who are stepping out of philosophy and into physics.
Hawking says there is no room, requirement or necessity for such a god when explaining the origins of our universe. If you want to remove the attribute of "created our universe" from god, then you can keep on believing in it/him/her.
The Sparrow 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 22nd October 2018, 05:44 AM   #127
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
If your argument is "Science cannot disprove God" the "God" you believe in has to be totally and completely inert, unable to affect or alter the world in any way.

In other words he has to not exist in everything but pure semantics.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 06:00 AM   #128
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If your argument is "Science cannot disprove God" the "God" you believe in has to be totally and completely inert, unable to affect or alter the world in any way.

In other words he has to not exist in everything but pure semantics.
Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 06:06 AM   #129
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.
Much as with the "agnostic" argument I agree 100% on an intellectual level, but this is not a discussion happening in a vacuum and modifiers put on one topic not put on another always have ulterior motives.

If someone says "There's not a polka dotted elephant dancing the Charleston outside of Shay Stadium" and there's zero evidence for it the hairsplit between "False" and "Not proven false" doesn't come out.

You say, correctly, that on a street level we are to just plainly say "There is no God" but my point is we're never allowed to discuss God on a street level because God is different because people define him that way.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 06:19 AM   #130
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Much as with the "agnostic" argument I agree 100% on an intellectual level, but this is not a discussion happening in a vacuum and modifiers put on one topic not put on another always have ulterior motives.

If someone says "There's not a polka dotted elephant dancing the Charleston outside of Shay Stadium" and there's zero evidence for it the hairsplit between "False" and "Not proven false" doesn't come out.

You say, correctly, that on a street level we are to just plainly say "There is no God" but my point is we're never allowed to discuss God on a street level because God is different because people define him that way.
Firstly, that elephant is dancing the can-can, not the Charleston. Secondly, we can discuss concepts of the divine on any level we wish, particularly in this subforum. Thirdly, stop letting other people define your concepts for you. Not all religions have a capital G God who is the familiar fictional character from so many public domain works. Assuming all belief in deity must be talking about that guy is like assuming all pirates are Johnny Depp because he's the most familiar one...to people who don't make a study of pirates.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 06:51 AM   #131
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,487
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not according to the those that believe in the god of the Jews, The Muslims, the Christians. They are gods that by their own claims are meant to interact with the world and have definite properties that can be "tested" by the "scientific method".

What you are babbling about is one of these definition of a god that no one actually believes in so totally and utterly unrelated to the god the believers say they believe in. It is just plain confusing to use the same word for different things.

Zeus was a god that many people believed in. The people that believed in him had a certain definition, one part of that definition was that he lived in a palace on mt Olympus, and please note not an invisible palace, not a palace that mortals could not access but an actual palace like a king or emperor of the time lived in. We know no such palace exists on Mt Olympus therefore Zeus as the god his believers believed in does not exist.
I am afraid you are oversimplifying the problem:

A believer needn't to defend an absent god. Although there are some who have, alluding to "God's silence". Kierkegaard is a little more complex than Thunderer Zeus' cult. I doubt very much you can refute Kierkegaard with a mathematical theorem or the law of gravity. This is a philosophical debate about the concept of truth and the subjectivity.

But first of all, you must have discussed the five ways of St. Thomas/Aristotle. Another philosophical problem that you can only debate on the concept of cause in philosophical terms. Or the ontological argument of St. Anselm/Descartes, which resides also in a clarification of concepts and not in verifiable by science data.


Once these or similar problems posed by theologians and philosophers –for example, miracles—have been cleared up, you will have a philosophical concept of truth that will allow you to say that only science grants reliable knowledge about facts. Consequently you will be able to affirm as Laplace and Hawking that the concept of god is a superfluous hypothesis.

But let it be clear to you that none of the problems I have just mentioned will be dealt with in a book on experimental science or mathematics. You should think about this.

Last edited by David Mo; 22nd October 2018 at 06:53 AM.
David Mo 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 22nd October 2018, 06:59 AM   #132
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,487
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Many scientists, including Hawking, have waded in on the god question. As soon as a theist makes a testable claim about god science can test it. All those claims have been shown to be false thus far. Proving god is up to those who claim there is one but all their other claims as to how the universe got to be the way it is are testable. God didn't do it.
Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.
David Mo 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 22nd October 2018, 07:01 AM   #133
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Everyone on this board owes me 50 dollars.

This question lies outside the realm of whatever you are going to use to prove me wrong because I say so.

Therefore I am correct.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 07:05 AM   #134
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,487
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.
I think you realize you're making a philosophical argument.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Much as with the "agnostic" argument I agree 100% on an intellectual level, but this is not a discussion happening in a vacuum and modifiers put on one topic not put on another always have ulterior motives.

If someone says "There's not a polka dotted elephant dancing the Charleston outside of Shay Stadium" and there's zero evidence for it the hairsplit between "False" and "Not proven false" doesn't come out.

You say, correctly, that on a street level we are to just plainly say "There is no God" but my point is we're never allowed to discuss God on a street level because God is different because people define him that way.
And you also.
David Mo 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 22nd October 2018, 07:14 AM   #135
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Firstly, that elephant is dancing the can-can, not the Charleston. Secondly, we can discuss concepts of the divine on any level we wish, particularly in this subforum. Thirdly, stop letting other people define your concepts for you. Not all religions have a capital G God who is the familiar fictional character from so many public domain works. Assuming all belief in deity must be talking about that guy is like assuming all pirates are Johnny Depp because he's the most familiar one...to people who don't make a study of pirates.
Interestingly they form the minority of the religious believers in the world (albeit still a huge number of believers), the majority of the world population that claims to believe in a god believe in either the Christian god (billion plus of just the one denomination) or the Islamic god (not far behind the RCs), we know what god they claim to believe in as they are so kind to describe and define their god. And it is a god we know does not exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 07:22 AM   #136
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I think you realize you're making a philosophical argument.
Nope. I've created an epistemology I call uberosophy that I define as being broader than philosophy so I win.

I hope I realize what you are doing is just one small part of uberosophy.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 07:28 AM   #137
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,487
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Nope. I've created an epistemology I call uberosophy that I define as being broader than philosophy so I win.

I hope I realize what you are doing is just one small part of uberosophy.
I'm sorry to tell you that what you call uberosophy is already patented since the 19th century at least.. It is usually done in many departments of philosophy. It receives the traditional name of positivism or the most recent of scientism.

Last edited by David Mo; 22nd October 2018 at 07:31 AM.
David Mo 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 22nd October 2018, 07:30 AM   #138
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,826
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Everyone on this board owes me 50 dollars.

This question lies outside the realm of whatever you are going to use to prove me wrong because I say so.

Therefore I am correct.
I'm not certain that was hawking's point, but I see what you are getting at.

Those God deniers are a bunch of proselytizers...
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog 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 22nd October 2018, 07:41 AM   #139
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Interestingly they form the minority of the religious believers in the world (albeit still a huge number of believers), the majority of the world population that claims to believe in a god believe in either the Christian god (billion plus of just the one denomination) or the Islamic god (not far behind the RCs), we know what god they claim to believe in as they are so kind to describe and define their god. And it is a god we know does not exist.
It's one of life's little ironies that most religious know very little of their own religion's theology and history. The average modern Christian has no idea that their theology owes more Aristotle than to Christ. The question is who are you setting out to disprove: Ms Jenkins of Finch, Oklahoma? Or Aquinas?

I don't believe in the theology of either, but I do know one of those has a lot more meat to it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 07:48 AM   #140
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I am afraid you are oversimplifying the problem:
I disagree I am making it just as complicated or simple as it needs to be.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
A believer needn't to defend an absent god. Although there are some who have, alluding to "God's silence". Kierkegaard is a little more complex than Thunderer Zeus' cult. I doubt very much you can refute Kierkegaard with a mathematical theorem or the law of gravity. This is a philosophical debate about the concept of truth and the subjectivity.
Which religion is that? That is of course a rhetorical question as his is not a god people actually believe in so has nothing to do with how the word god is used when believers use that word. He liked the comfort of his cultural religion but realised that the god that involved was of course a god that does not exist so tried to get the best of both worlds.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
But first of all, you must have discussed the five ways of St. Thomas/Aristotle. Another philosophical problem that you can only debate on the concept of cause in philosophical terms. Or the ontological argument of St. Anselm/Descartes, which resides also in a clarification of concepts and not in verifiable by science data.
We shall have to agree to disagree - the whichness of the why isn't at all interesting to me.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Once these or similar problems posed by theologians and philosophers –for example, miracles—have been cleared up, you will have a philosophical concept of truth that will allow you to say that only science grants reliable knowledge about facts. Consequently you will be able to affirm as Laplace and Hawking that the concept of god is a superfluous hypothesis.
Yeah I know fans of philosophy like to make these grand claims - and they always seem to forget that they are built on the same foundations of any human endeavour. That fans think it is profound is their problem not mine.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
But let it be clear to you that none of the problems I have just mentioned will be dealt with in a book on experimental science or mathematics. You should think about this.
Of course not - fiction is fiction after all, and I like fiction, but I try not to confuse fiction with reality. Which is why I know Zeus doesn't exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 22nd October 2018 at 07:57 AM. Reason: an embarrassing lack of not ing
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 07:48 AM   #141
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work.

But "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall doesn't make them right.
__________________
"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

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd October 2018 at 07:55 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 22nd October 2018, 07:53 AM   #142
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's one of life's little ironies that most religious know very little of their own religion's theology and history. The average modern Christian has no idea that their theology owes more Aristotle than to Christ. The question is who are you setting out to disprove: Ms Jenkins of Finch, Oklahoma? Or Aquinas?

I don't believe in the theology of either, but I do know one of those has a lot more meat to it.
Oh indeed but if say a RC wants to say she does not believe in the god of her church that's a rather strange position to hold* so I am sure they will be able to define the god they do believe in..... (*Granted not so much for some of the other christian churches such as CofE. )
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 07:55 AM   #143
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,826
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work. I

Be "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall to make them right.
Cripes, I think that number rises to 99% given the fact that most people can't read ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

"Solid" point otherwise.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 22nd October 2018 at 08:09 AM.
The Big Dog 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 22nd October 2018, 08:03 AM   #144
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
TM is correct that for all indents and porpoises 95% of modern Christianity is a self feeding fandom of people who've never actually read the original work. I

Be "We're so disorganized, self contradictory, and poorly defined that we win by default" doesn't strike me as something we should be championing.

Just because they're Jello we can't nail to a wall to make them right.
It's not a contest, or a game, or a battle. There's no 'winning', not against other people. The point of intellectual endeavor is to arrive at the truth, to figure out how things really are. That's the goal of all the sciences AND all the theologies AND all the philosophies. That some/most/all of them have not met with success doesn't make them all pointless wastes or their adherents idiots. That some/most/all of the self-proclaimed adherents of a given scientific theory/theology/philosophy fail to understand it doesn't make it wrong any more than understanding it would make it correct. Things are how they are, regardless of what we know or how we think we got to what knowledge we have of them. Rejecting a whole branch of thought because you don't like the way one of the leaves looks is not intellectually rigorous: you should study a thing before you reach a conclusion of its merits. It is not required that you reject every possible theory except the one you personally pursue. For one thing, it would take lifetimes of study to understand the full complexity and nuance of all prior human thought!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 08:43 AM   #145
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And it is a god we know does not exist.
In spite of your attempts to place this in the "Russell's Teapot" category, this is a claim that you can't prove. Not with philosophy and certainly not with science.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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 22nd October 2018, 08:50 AM   #146
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
In spite of your attempts to place this in the "Russell's Teapot" category, this is a claim that you can't prove. Not with philosophy and certainly not with science.

Of course we can, have you never checked the definition of god in the RCC et all?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 08:54 AM   #147
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
I'm trying to even hypothetically invent a strawman of all this that's more intellectually hollow then "You're wrong to say the thing we can't define, can't show any evidence for, special plead away everything about it, and place it outside of any rational thought in it's own special epistemology doesn't 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 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 22nd October 2018, 08:59 AM   #148
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,228
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm trying to even hypothetically invent a strawman of all this that's more intellectually hollow then "You're wrong to say the thing we can't define, can't show any evidence for, special plead away everything about it, and place it outside of any rational thought in it's own special epistemology doesn't exist."
It's actually worse than that JoeMorgue, the actual believers do define their god - the RCC is not shy about telling us about their god. It's those that seem to be rather unaware of what the religious claim to believe in discussions like this that are vague about their definitions or tell us that the religious don't believe in what they claim to believe!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd October 2018, 09:02 AM   #149
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Fair cop. Amend to "Things we totally define for ourselves but pretend we can't define when discussing them with other people."
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 09:29 AM   #150
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Why is it so difficult to accept that figuring out the truth of things isn't a contest? You wouldn't accept a bishop declaring they held a perfect understanding of the full truth of reality. Why then would you expect anyone to accept the same claim from a scientist? Science is a method of inquiry, it's not a set of particular conclusions that have been reached and are therefore set in stone as absolute truth. It's as ridiculous to expect absolute finality of science as it is to expect experimentation from religion. If tomorrow someone invents a device that can detect the gnostic divine spark we'd have to adjust current scientific theories. Things are how they are, whether we're remotely right in what we think of them or what system we use to reach those conclusions.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 09:35 AM   #151
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth. I agree with that myself. But if some ancient Greek philosopher theorized the atom based on nothing but his own notions he was just as correct as the scientists millennia later who finally managed to see the damn things. He didn't use the best methodology but he was still right. And the atom would continue existing whether nobody knew of it or not.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 09:39 AM   #152
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why is it so difficult to accept that figuring out the truth of things isn't a contest?
What does that even mean?
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 09:40 AM   #153
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.
I suggested such an experiment and it was rejected by everybody. I don't recall an inkling of support or admiration for it.
ServiceSoon 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 22nd October 2018, 09:47 AM   #154
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth.
Okay let me lay out my mindset here (100% honest, no snark, no trap, no gotchas.)

Step back from the terminology. If whatever the methodology you use whatever you want to call it to get the answer to a question doesn't at least include the base concepts of falseifiability, repeatable results, removal of unnecessary variables, stuff like that... what are you even doing that isn't "Creative Writing?"

It's not that "Scientific method is the best means to figure out the truth" per se, it's more that without things like what I mentioned what you have at the end isn't an answer by my definition.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 09:49 AM   #155
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
I suggested such an experiment and it was rejected by everybody. I don't recall an inkling of support or admiration for it.
It was most certainly very wrong.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 22nd October 2018, 09:51 AM   #156
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Things either exist or they don't, and whether we know of them or not doesn't change that. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities. There is no reason to believe they exist. But having an absolute conviction they necessarily cannot exist simply because we haven't evidence to the contrary is assumption: we don't have a scientific experiment to prove no deities exist. How would such an experiment be devised? Where would observation work to disprove the existence of gods? If there were a physical location accessible to us that we knew they occupied we could go observe it.

Again, and I restate because people here tend to get very boringly triggered on this, there is no reason to believe in gods. But lack of proof for the existence of a thing is not the same as proof of its nonexistence. The functional effect is the same: behave as if there are no gods.

This should be obviously true, especially on this board. Real shame this needs to be pointed out.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 22nd October 2018, 09:56 AM   #157
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
What does that even mean?
It means that from what I've gotten from your posts you appear less interested in discovering the truth of how the universe is than in winning an argument against 'the other side'.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 09:58 AM   #158
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It means that from what I've gotten from your posts you appear less interested in discovering the truth of how the universe is than in winning an argument against 'the other side'.
Because I don't feel "the other side" is offering anything beyond word games and semantics.
__________________
"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 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 22nd October 2018, 10:00 AM   #159
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,641
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay let me lay out my mindset here (100% honest, no snark, no trap, no gotchas.)

Step back from the terminology. If whatever the methodology you use whatever you want to call it to get the answer to a question doesn't at least include the base concepts of falseifiability, repeatable results, removal of unnecessary variables, stuff like that... what are you even doing that isn't "Creative Writing?"

It's not that "Scientific method is the best means to figure out the truth" per se, it's more that without things like what I mentioned what you have at the end isn't an answer by my definition.
You are complaining that things that are not science are not operating by the rules of science. Of course they aren't! They're not supposed to. If Buddhism were to act scientifically it wouldn't be Buddhism, it would be science. You may or may not like Madonna but you can hardly fault her for not being Katy Perry.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2018, 10:01 AM   #160
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,799
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You are complaining that things that are not science are not operating by the rules of science. Of course they aren't! They're not supposed to
But none of these things have an identity beyond "Lookit at us, we're not science."

Sure I've heard a lot about "things science can't answer" but nothing even resembling an explanation of how these all these other things are supposed to answer it.
__________________
"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

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd October 2018 at 10:04 AM.
JoeMorgue 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
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 02:43 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.