Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psychonaut
That is not what religion is. That is meta-physics. Similar concepts yes, but slightly different. Religion is the use of supernatural claims, without evidence, to explain natural phenomenon in the universe. Religion makes claims to try to explain the universe without ever providing actual physical evidence. Science makes claims to try to explain the universe using what we have observed as a species, and we accept that some of our suppositions may be incorrect and are subject to a burden of proof and rigorous testing. Am I justified to belief that the two fish I caught today will mean I have 5 fish when I put them in my fridge that already contains three fish? Well I’ll put them out next to each other and count them. Two fish there and three fish there equal five fish. Therefore I am justified to believe I have five fish.
I reject your definition of "religion".
"Religion" defines a type of belief system, nothing more. I am not in the business of defending "religion" en masse any more than I am in the business of defending "politics" or "literature".
Quote:
As a statement I would agree. Science is based on two basic epistemological suppositions:
• I exist
• At least some of the time, some of my senses are accurate (they reflect reality)
From these two suppositions I am able to observe and interact with the world and draw conclusions from the world. If I do not do so, I am fundamentally unable to do anything.
And the third epistdemological claim: what I observe is scrucable to a reasoned analysis, this is the element which is said to presuppose a theistic worldview.
Quote:
Bullshit. See my above point. Science only works in numbers? Hilarious! Science uses the initial two assumptions to then draw evidence to support claims. Without that we go nowhere epistemologically.
Science works exclusively in numbers - numbers are ultimately measured by fallible human senses.
Quote:
Exactly. Theism inherently makes more assumptions than scientific method does. Scientific method is not able to simulate all of existence at once at any given time. Our minds are incapable of knowing everything, of perceiving anything “perfectly”. We are limited in size and scope as a species. Science knows and accepts this. So we approach the world with inherent scepticism and say what evidence is there for my belief? The more evidence I have the more certain I am for a certain idea, theory or concept.
"Because I am a skeptic, your belief is invalid" - no that doesn't wash.
Quote:
Ranking philosophy? There are no levels of philosophy.
Of course there are - metaphysics is at the top, and we proceed downwards with branches which require more and more assumptions.
Quote:
The burden of proof lies on the religious. Any claim of god requires evidence. If I say to you I have cured cancer you will ask me to prove it. If I cannot prove that I have cured cancer you will dismiss my claim. The same goes for god. PROVE IT.
No proof I might present would be acceptable, I could shout the name of God and cast out demons, walk on water, raise the dead, and you'd die looking for the wires and trapdoors.
Quote:
Why? Why can’t it have come from nothing? Why couldn’t it have been created from a giant knocking over a glass of juice onto the floor of its living room and the resulting mess on the floor is us? What if he is still getting around to cleaning up the mess? What if we all get sucked up into a giant broom and washed away? THE HORROR! Your point is what exactly? Or is there no point to this pointless statement?
Your giant would be "God", wouldn't it. We could come from nothing, but then you are saying that something spontaneously generated itself from nothing, rather than it being generated by an outside force.
Quote:
Ah the fallacy of the creator. How I do love thee! And who created the creator? Something even more grand than the creator no doubt! Even if you make the supposition that there is a creator where your proof for said creator?
The fallacy of the fallacy - all Cube said was if there is a Creator, there is no fallacy in his statment because he did not then go on to argue that complexity demonstrates the existence of a creator.
Quote:
Ah yes, the creator is self-evident! This reply is so flawed it is incoherent. If everyone agreed that a creator is self-evident, then there would be no-one questioning and denying the existence of a god in the first place. Divine existence is the very thing being disputed by me and evidence is the very thing you have yet to produce. You cannot push into accepting the very thing YOU need to establish by declaring it as “self-evident”.
You are putting words in my mouth, all I said was that people believe what they want to - like when you believe your wife isn't cheating on you.
Quote:
Have you heard of the concept of Occam's razor? We take the conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions. Which approach makes the fewest assumptions? The epistemological approach I outlined earlier. Can the universe exist without the supernatural? Yes. So we conclude that the supernatural is unnecessary and we abandon it.
I have, but you have the formulation wrong. William Ockham (14th Century Scientist and Theologian) said that when presented with two equally likely explanations we should prefer the simplest. However, he went on to say that this did not make the simpler explanation correct, just more likely.
So, when you can demonstrate that something from nothing is more likely than something from something, you may be on to something. You'll also need to actually have an explanation for everything including annoying ningles like conciousness before you can say that the universe definitively does not require the Supernatural.
Quote:
See the previous point, regarding Occam’s razor. That religion incorporates additional assumptions is a logical weakness, not a strength. If you want to believe in the soul or god, YOU have to prove it. Not science. The burden of proof lies with you, because you are making extraordinary unnecessary epistemological assumptions.
Stop flinging that razor around, you've already cut yourself once - I expcet that if I told you what Ockham used it for you'd throw up.
Quote:
Because Scientific method has come up with incorrect theories does not invalidate new theories. It is actually a strength of the concept. We come up with ideas. We test them. And find them to be false so we abandon our search and try again. And the irony your statement, beautiful!
True, but it does mean you can't make logical leaps like "there is no soul" just because you want to. You are not engaging with my argument though, so I'm probably wasting my time.
Quote:
No. It is not abandoned because there “are no numbers”. It is abandoned, because there is no proof. If you want to believe in a soul then prove it.
You can't force me to use Scientia, I can use inference or perception instead. Just because you cannot measure something does not mean it does not exist.
Quote:
What if I claim that Western philosophy is wrong? The soul is not perpetual and inside the body, it is in fact outside the body. The Universe is the soul, the grand total of everything from which everything grows and is embodied by us briefly. Upon death we the body return to the soul. Am I correct in the assumption? I cannot say, I have no proof. So it is merely that a simple supposition that is interesting but not possible to know with any certainty. So I abandon it as a fleeting and playful thought.
This might be construed as a summarisation of Thomas Aquinas' principle of esse, the participation of living things in the "being" of God. It could also apply to various forms of reincarnation. Just because this does not interest you does not mean such question are not worth reflecting upon or taking positions over.
Quote:
No again. Incorrect. Scientific method requires this universe. There could be other universes where other methods may be valid. I do not know. I have no proof. So I abandon it as unnecessary.
Oh behave - this universe is stated to be order be "Scientists", it has not been proved - the entire edifice rests upon this untestable claim.
Quote:
Then why hasn’t he or it changed them? If they are so arbitrary why do they remain so constant? And to define an omnipotent being is easy. You. Your control over your own body is omnipotent. You are able to run the entirety of your body with no conscious thought. You in the realm of your own vessel of cells and matter are omnipotent.
Like I said, if He did change them you would say they hadn't changed.
Quote:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA. So in a universe where everything we see is material and everything is either matter or energy there is another mythical form that you call the soul? That is an interesting supposition. Please prove it. You can? Well then I am an elephant.
Everything you perceive via your physical senses might be material, but then those physical senses are only attuned to physical stimuli.
If a blind man declared there was no such thing as sight, would you believe him?
Quote:
Where are these mythical proofs? Hmmm? If they were so easily dismissed out of hand why don’t you do so right here and right now?
If you wish to frame a philosophical argument I shall go and find the corresponding counter.
Quote:
Facts are not “enshrined”. They are evidence of varying validity that we can use to understand aspects of the world. If we disagree with them then we can test them. If they stand up to our own tests then we can agree to some certainty that they are accurate. If they do not stand up to the tests then we will set them aside and retest until our view is more certain. They are the results of the observable world.
Oh please, go look up "Steady State Universe"
Quote:
That is not “cheating”. That is the basis of deductive reasoning and the burden of proof. With any extraordinary claim, comes the burden of extraordinary evidence.
The religious always decry this as “cheating” or a double standard. It is not. Science does not make these extraordinary claims, so does not have the burden of extraordinary proof. If I say I have a 12 inch cock you will say bullshit, and I would need to back up my claim with some evidence.
Not all reasoning is deductive, not all positions are reasoned - you are cheating by claiming that it is so.
Quote:
Unfortunately you can discard anything that does not have evidence. Otherwise any old sap could say he had a million dollars.
Ah, so you have no friends then, as you have no Scientific evidence to support the validity of any particular human relationship.
Quote:
Again, Ad Populum.
If a man can sit and work out the mathematics behind magnetism or genetics and then get down on his knees and thank God for this revelation than evidence of an Ordered and Scientifically explicable universe is not an argument against Theism.
That leaves intellectual fashion as the main explanation for why modern scientists tend to be atheists.
Quote:
I wonder why that is? The suppression of debate against religion perhaps? The lack of proper education maybe? Plenty of explainable and evidential factors to be found.
Lack of proper education, among Scientists?
Suppression of Religious debate?
Newton was a theologian who did physics when he was bored, and an acknowledged Arrian heretic.
People used to do theology one day and mathematics the next - your argument is clearly invalid, the two are compatible and were practiced by perfectly self-aware individuals.
Go read up on medieval universities.
Quote:
Where is your evidence for this claim? And additionally it is not an argument that opposes science. It actually is an argument for more peer reviews and science. The more critical evidence based reasoning we undertake the less likely people will stake their egos on unsubstantiated claims!
Richard Dawkins.
Fred Hoyle.
Stephen Hawking
Galileo
All defended untenable positions after they had proved wrong - in Galileo's case if he had followed the evidence he could have presented it to the Pope and avoided excommunication, but he suppressed the evidence because it didn't fit his model.
Also you, right now, slandering scientists of the past as being weak-willed or ignorant because they don't conform to your idea of what a Scientist should be.
Quote:
Yes. How is this a bad thing? We do not know everything, our equipment improves over time. So will our understandings and applications of this evidence.
I was responding to someone describing "religious" suppression of Science, my point was the modern scientific establishment does the same to new theories and the historical religious element is incidental.
Quote:
However, with our flawed perceptions and occasional inaccuracy how can we ever say what we know is certain? It is possible that there is some truth that ties everything together. Science strives to find it, through trial and error. With claims using evidence. With justification.
This does not mean there is no truth, just that it is impossible to see - just like the Higgs Bosun, which brings me to...
Quote:
Religion arbitrarily states what it says is the truth. Why? Why is it the eternal truth? How do you, with your flawed human nature know it is the truth? Because it is in the Bible? That is an Appeal to Authority, not a legitimate argument. Because god said its true? Whose god? Your god? Fred’s god? The god of snakes? How did he tell you? Why did he tell you? Why didn’t he tell someone else? What if you heard it wrong? What if you wrote what you heard wrong and missed the key elements of what he said?
It was announced "Higgs Bosun found" in the news, but it wasn't - what was found were emissions of child-particles.
You are comparing the sort of doctrinal statements prepared for the congregation with scientific study carried out by universities. Why don't you compare doctrinal statements to news reports, or theological doctors to ones in the Natural Sciences.
Right now you are engaging in the fallacy of false equivalence, presumably thinking I won't notice.
Obviously, you never actually read my posts, just quote them.
Quote:
Religion creates more questions than it answers. Therefore it is an unnecessary assumption and we abandon it.
Oh right master, forgive me in my churlish ignorance, please don't beat me for my superstitions!
Quote:
Ugh, too many fallacies. Need a break. To be continued…
Rather fewer fallacies than you claimed - just because you can make it sound like a fallacy, doesn't mean it is one - as "No True Scotsman" demonstrates.
