Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex wrote: »

I imagine you think that is some sort of gotcha, but yes you actually can. An example would be one of my common sayings in this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions.

No, I don't think it is a gotcha. That's why I ASKED A QUESTION. You obviously walk into this forum with your fists raised ready a fight. To be honest, in the past I was probably up for trading blows but not so much nowadays. I prefer to shake the dust from my sandals. So if all you can muster are mean-spirited responses such your last post then please don't expect me to respond. My sandals are awaitin' a shake.

Why I asked my question was because logical positivism - which actually employs empiricism - fell because it failed it own test. It couldn't live up to it's own standard. And despite being amongst the philosophy's chief promoters, A. J. Ayre recognised this when it was pointed out to him in a debate. Afterwards he said all philosophical systems should first pass their own standards.

I actually still don't see an answer to my question. And it is a question, not a "gotcha". So, again, and asked in honest curiosity, how do you demonstrate empirically that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

I'm curious myself Fanny, why do you think it necessary to rely on empirical measurement in some areas but not others.

I imagine you are a Christian because of something along the lines of it makes sense to you. Would you be happy if the engineers building a bridge worked on the same principle? Making the bridge as the went along based on what made sense to them, rather than empirically measuring the requirements?

Why ask me and then answer for me?

I'm happy to rely on empirical measurement (why are we talking about measurement now?) when it comes to aeroplanes and bridges. I never said otherwise. But empirical measurement is not in the same ballpark as your claim that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence. There are some recognised problems with the latter. For example, it is argued that logic and mathematical concepts are innate and rational intuitions.

If you wouldn't be happy with that, because they would probably get it wrong and the bridge would collapse, why are you happy with what ever method you used to be a Christian?

Is it simple a case that you dont really know if you are right it just doesn't matter if you are wrong, a bridge is not going to fall over.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Zombrex wrote: »

Again you ignore the question.

Let me put it to you in a way hopefully you cannot avoid.

In science there is a set of things we are confident exist, based on are collective scientific knowledge.

God is not found in that. God appears no where in a list of things we thing exist based on scientific discovery.

But you know he exists. Millions of Christians know he exists. Many of them are scientists.

You all know he exists. So why is he not found in scientific lists of things that exist.

Just explain that, rather than waffling on about worldviews.

Um, 'lists' of things...where is this 'list' of things? Is your philosophy on it too as the only way of arriving at any knowledge is the Zombrex way? I'd love to see that list.

You don't get to tell God what to do.

You've been debating Christians long enough, at least twenty keyboards later, for to at least realise that we can't make him 'materialise' for you.

You see Zombrex, the God I believe in as Christian never said that he would pop up under your microscope one day and say 'Hi' - However, one way he did claim to be obvious to anybody who has eyes, is in his creation and it's awesome understandablility, reasonableness and beauty. This is his work, and it's beautiful - evolution is beautiful.

So therefore, you won't find God where you are looking for him....the one you suppose is sitting somewhere on a fluffy clowd, the only thing you will find is his handiwork, and you've decided to reject the idea totally that there is an author at all, which is your prerogative.

- but you don't get to stifle 'thought', because you don't own it, and you haven't got the monopoly, and you don't own science either. It's a group of 'people' studying, not machines.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is contained within all the current scientific theories. You know this, stop trying to stall.

Within all scientific theories? So there's a list in there somewhere that says something about God eh?

I don't think so Zombrex.

Telling God what to do is irrelevant to the question I asked you.

It is relevant - You have decided to prove God doesn't exist, a strawman version of him that should be on a list somewhere abouts, and there is only 'your' way of thinking that is the right way, and you are going to somehow set us free with this superior worldview you have - Yet, yet.....science hasn't got anything to say about what you do or do not think about God.

I don't tell electrons what to do, we can still gain information about their existences using science.

Your dead right you don't. We just study behaviour....

Why is science not using your methods to gain information about God, even just that he exists and is as Christians claim. If it is possible for you to know this and have confidence in this knowledge, why can scientists not use your methods to gain this information and incorporate it into the theory of everything (ie the physical theories that describe all known elements of reality, ie everything that exists)

Again with the personification of science. Science is made up of people who ARE theists Zombrex, and they can function quite rationally without restricting themselves to your narrow philosophy. By all means go ahead, but I don't have to think it's clever do I?

Well yes, because it seems to take an age to get a straight answer out of a Christian.

No, you DID get a straight answer, and you choose to ignore it. Also, Fanny asked you a straight question which you danced around like a hot coal - I don't blame people dusting their shoes, when you don't hold your own philosophy to your own standards.

Surely you know by the lengths you go to avoid answering these questions, that there is some valid point being made here.

Yes, of course that you've spent ten odd years trying to refute that God exists based on science that says nothing about him. Nice reasoning.

And yet some how you know he exists, and you have confidence in that knowledge.

I do, I have confidence, I have faith. You don't. Simples.

How do you know he exists, and why can science not use the method you used in order to also have confidence in his existences, or the existence of anything else for that matter.

What is it with you and personifying science? Apart from that weirdness - people who work in various areas of science DO use their reason in all sorts of ways. It's the reason why it can seem like their are so many dogmas in it - you'll have various different physicists for example who may hold on to a theory and persue it, put their 'faith' in it for a whole lifetime. I'm not saying that they won't be equally delighted if it's proven false, but their 'reason' is because they have a confidence.....

Ok, why does science not use that, the obviousness of nature? Why are scientists across the world not using the obvious of nature to draw conclusions about how reality is, conclusions that they can be confident in?

That's pretty stupid Zombrex, and it's NOT what I said either.

Science will look where ever there is an ability to gain confident knowledge about the truth of reality. If they are looking in the wrong place, just tell them and me where to look in order to gain further knowledge, and explain how if science looks there it can continue to have the same confidence in the conclusions it draws as it always has.

Tell Science and you? You do realise how weird that sounds?
Perhaps sending up smoke signals to you might work better at communicating that people doing science don't do it to prove or disprove God.

Very true. But again "God exists and is X" is not found in any scientific theory or list of parts of reality that science knows exists.

Why is that?

Because science is not a person Zombrex. It's a tool to study nature and a group of people with various different worldviews, some Christian, some not. No biggy.

Zombrex wrote: »

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

Nice of you to grant that!
What hypocrisy? I might be the guy building the bridge, I promise I wont disregard engineering principals when doing so.
Sorry but are you actually saying that anything not included in your set of science facts is to be disregarded? WTF? Get real, some of us want to live not just function and if you don't get that then I feel sorry for you.

Zombrex wrote: »

Why do you promise to stick to scientific principles when making the bridge if these other principles of yours that allow you to know things with confidence work just as well at determine accurately details of our world.

Or is it the case that actually they don't? And if you attempted to gain knowledge via these methods about say a bridge rather than God, you would have so little confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge that you would not risk the bridge or the people on it?

I can be just as confident that somebody loves me ... as I can about a bridge staying up ... they are simply two different types of knowledge.

... and I'd take eternal love any day ... instead of a cold steel bridge that will fall down in a few years unless very significant effort is expended on its maintenance.

The love of a beautiful loyal Christian woman is only exceeded by our loving Creator God Jesus Christ ... and I'd trade anything that the material World has to offer for both.

The fallacy of focusing on the material world to the exclusion of the spirit is summarised in the rhetorical question posed by Jesus Christ:-
What profit a man if he gain the whole world ... but suffer the loss of his soul?

... the answer is very obvious!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

I am, but then so did you just now.

Why do you promise to stick to scientific principles when making the bridge if these other principles of yours that allow you to know things with confidence work just as well at determine accurately details of our world.

Or is it the case that actually they don't? And if you attempted to gain knowledge via these methods about say a bridge rather than God, you would have so little confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge that you would not risk the bridge or the people on it?

Ahh, I think I'm getting your point now, or at least hope I am.
I use scientific principals when dealing with physics and theological principals when dealing with metaphysics, see how it works? they are different things not unrelated but still different, they compliment not contradict each other.
Balance and checks, bit like science in a way

Zombrex wrote: »

How is God's existence a metaphysical question. God either exists or he doesn't exist. God is either the Christian notion of God, some other notion of a god, or doesn't exist at all.

The question of "Does God exist" is no different to "Do electrons exist", or "Does the illuminous ether exist". Not that these things are the same type of things, but the question of their existence (which is either true or false), is the same. God either exists and this is a fact of reality, or he doesn't exist, and this is also a fact of reality. The question at hand is how do you have confidence in one belief rather than the other, and why does that method of confidence not apply when turned to a question of whether electrons exist, or anything else.

Narrow definition of exists!, remember one time electrons didn't exist by your arrow definition as their was no evidence of them.
We call it faith for a reason, in case you hadn't noticed.

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? What would be a "wider" definition of "exists".



Er, what? When did I ever say electrons didn't exist because there was no evidence of them?

You seem to be really missing the point here tommy. "God" (the Christian notion of a god) is either something that does exist or doesn't exist. If he does exist then he exists. If he doesn't exist then the concept is just something made up by humans.

I can't really tell if you care all that much which of those statements is true. You seem to subscribe to the notion that it doesn't matter if the belief is actually a true representation of reality or not, what matters is that it brings people happiness.

I would imagine you wouldn't take such a view for something that actually has consequences, ie you wouldn't care how happy it made some engineers that they believed the bridge would stay up, what actually mattered is if the bridge will or won't stay up. You wouldn't care about hurting the feelings of some engineers by pointing out that they actually don't know the bridge will stay up.



What does that mean? Do you have faith that bridges hold up and that your plane will fly. Or would you rather have confidence, which I personally fine much more valuable than faith for anything that matters.

This seems to go back to the point I made earlier, that really it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not. A bridge won't fall down, a plane won't fall out of the sky, if you are wrong. Therefore your belief doesn't require confidence.

You can appreciate I hope that this is not in anyway satisfactory for any question that actually matters.

The Christian god doesn't exist, God exists and Christians have a set of beliefs about Him, A wide range of beliefs btw, from vague, hand wavie mysticism to hard line fundamentalism. Which one has so offended you that you seen to be certain He doesn't exist.
I take the view that I don't believe he doesn't exist.

I care about what works in its relevant place, why can't you get that?