Geomy wrote: » If everything was turned around,could it be that the experience is controlling the reaction rather than the reaction controlling the experience... Just say someone has a spiritual experience or sees a ghost etc Could it be that this specter,ghost,God, angel, emotions, imagination to some is projecting something onto the observer. Therefore causing the chemical reactions and various firing of the brain...
Geomy wrote: » Zombrex have you ever had a spiritual experience or something of an unexplainable nature happen to you,and not look for a rational explanation and see it as it is...
Magnetics wrote: » To completely discount any sort of 'higher power' or universal 'knowledge' is just as ignorant and presumptuous as blindly religious people in my opinion.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » How do you figure this, "my friend"*? We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof, therefore until the situation changes the default logical position is to assume that there, like with the celestial tea-pot, is no such being. You're on a roll tonight's Brian,are you at a fancy dress,let me see you decided to dress as a dice. Roll on there now let's see what comes up next. What about Q in The Next Generation
Brian Shanahan wrote: » We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof..
nagirrac wrote: » Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?
Pherekydes wrote: » The lack of evidence for a higher power?
nagirrac wrote: » Perhaps you should let Brian answer for himself as it sounds like you did not read his post. These are his exact words: "We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 evidence for a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof" In the context of Brian's claim above, you cannot claim that the "plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack of a higher power" is the lack of evidence for a higher power. That is not a rational argument.
In the first place there is plenty evidence for a higher power, should one choose to consider it.
I am more interested though in the plenty of persuasive evidence that a higher power does not exist. I truly hope we are not talking about scientific evidence, as in science there is no evidence either way.
For a simple case of proving a negative, by the way, consider how you prove the absence of pennies in a piggy-bank. You break it open and look inside: it is empty. On what grounds would you assert nevertheless that there might possibly still be pennies in there, only you cannot see or hear or feel or spend them?
koth wrote: » From "Thinking of Answers" by A.C Grayling, from the "proving a negative section".
nagirrac wrote: » A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself! The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce". The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.
nagirrac wrote: » A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!
The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce". The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh if only certain theists would stop trying to force everyone to abide by their rules we could happily divorce.
ninja900 wrote: » Brian may have over-egged the pudding but you can't ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of the existence of any deity.
koth wrote: » That doesn't address the content of my post. How does a theist/deist say "there are still pennies in the pigg-bank" when there is no evidence to support the claim? And why should others behave as if the theist actually did have the pennies?
nagirrac wrote: » Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.
nagirrac wrote: » There is plenty of scientific evidence that suggests a deity to many people, such as a universe with a beginning, the natural laws of the universe, life emerging from inanimate matter, etc.
These can be argued to death, but the existing evidence does not prove either side of the argument. The fact that many scientists argue for a deity based on existing scientific evidence defeats the "no evidence" argument. It is an open question.
The whole field of Psychology is based on subjective evidence, do atheists refuse to go to a therapist because of a lack of scientific evidence?
One has to be careful in rejecting subjective evidence. The only statement in terms of any type of evidence of reality that you can declare with 100% certainty is that you personally exist, which is subjective evidence. Beyond that, evidence gets a little less certain in terms of what it tells us. What "you" and "out there" are becomes more mystifying the more you contemplate it seriously with an open mind.
There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.
Alsolutely nothing is proven regarding our reality by science, as science by its definition has to be falsifiable.
The subjective evidence from mystical traditions going back to the dawn of human civilization is actually quite consistent, the perennial philosophy which is described best in Aldous Huxley's book of the same name. If you are unwilling to consider subjective evidence for a higher power then it is best to stop asking questions on the subject as you find yourself going around in endless circles.
ninja900 wrote: » If people choose to interpret these as suggesting a deity that's up to them. Suggesting is not evidence. God of the gaps argument. As I said in the Dawkins Day thread, scientists outside of their field are no more reliable nor less vulnerable to irrationality than the layman.
koth wrote: » And we still come back to how the world has to try accommodate everyone. People invoking a higher power to justify discrimination for example. This then means the higher power has to be proven to exist otherwise it's entirely unreasonable to impose religious dogma on everyone. The other side of the coin is that you have to rely on something other than deities when deciding how society runs.
Knasher wrote: » The purpose of science is to lend rigor and credibility to the way we acquire knowledge. It is meant to constrain the conclusions that people can reach until they are properly supported by the evidence. "Knowledge" acquired outside of science barely rises above the level of anecdote. It is always possible that any conclusions reached this way are accurate, but when that happens it is due to blind luck, merely stumbling upon the truth than actually finding it. Crucially however, any conclusions that cannot be investigated by scientific means, are by definition impossible to validate. Correct conclusions are impossible to differentiate in any way from incorrect ones. The only option is to doubt all of them, until a way is found for science to investigate them, or loosen your grip on reality.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » @nagirrac, you've liked the post so you obviously know what the scientific method is about, and yet you still ignore it. That is why we are constantly giving out to you, because you simply should know a lot better.
Sarky wrote: » All you have to do is show us something that proves reality is not objective and consistent, and you can happily claim whatever bollocks you like without being called on it.
nagirrac wrote: » Fortunately an Irishman much smarter than I did that already (in 1964)http://www.weylmann.com/bell.pdf
Sarky wrote: » "There's something missing from current models, therefore magic" is not a very compelling argument.
nagirrac wrote: » The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable.
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: » But, in fairness, that does bring the implication that objectivity and consistency have to be assumed, as they cannot be demonstrated. Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge this. If, erm, we want to be objective and consistent.
