Chance vs Intelligent design

[Brian2]

Do you see that you just described a god that exists for zero time and does nothing?

No.

Yes, I've heard that a lot. My point is that everything that effects us happens in this universe, and that includes any actions of "god". Does how the universe might or might not have been created make any practical difference to how you relate to god? If you pray and get some kind of response, does it matter where the response originated? If god's powers only extended to things that effected us, that is in this universe, and did not extend to being able to do all kinds of weird stuff in some other supernatural realm, would you even know? I agree you might have to attribute some kind of power we don't yet understand in some cases.

I'm not actually suggesting this is true, but I do think that theists get themselves into all kinds of logical problems when debating with atheists when they insist on all these omni attributes of god that cannot be demonstrated. And they don't need to, when they could just stick to what they do know, and admit ignorance about the rest of it. I'd respect that certainly. I end with an analogy I have used in the past.

Imagine you have no knowledge of electricity. You have a device with a screen, to which a cord is attached, with an odd looking set of pins at the end. You notice that the pins fit nicely with an outlet on the wall, so you plug them in to it. Immediately, moving pictures appear on the screen of the device and you hear voices and music. At this point, you may wonder what exactly it is in the wall outlet, and make up all kinds of fanciful explanations, but the one thing you know for sure is that the TV (as you decide to call it) works when plugged in and not when it isn't. And that's all you need to know to enjoy an evening of entertainment.

I admit I don't know much about time or other dimensions and what can be done with access to all dimensions, including a spiritual realm with possibly no dimensions that we know anything about.
Your analogy seems to be saying to live in the here and now and don't worry about anything else.
It is true that we cannot find out the anything else unless we have access to some sort of revelations from a source that knows.
Some people believe one source, other people believe other sources and some believe nothing at all.

 

[Brian2]

It also can't eliminate graviton pixies or the need for graviton pixies.
There's an infinite number of unfalsifiable things that science can't eliminate.
It's kind of a silly tautology to say that an unfalsifiable thing can't be falsified, in fact.

Nevertheless it is true and it should not need to be repeated just because some people don't like the idea of things being unfalsifiable and want to eliminate them, especially the pesky God thing that cannot be falsified.

Why should anyone care about theology?

It's the potential source of all the answers that science cannot supply.

Wait... did you just say that not believing extra-ordinary things on the count that they have no verifiable evidence, is "scientism"?

I smell an ad hominin, and a rather strange one at that. One in the category of "not even wrong".

It is just my understanding of "scientism" is a belief that science is capable of supplying answers that it is not capable of supplying.
There is no doubt a difference between someone not believing what there is no verifiable evidence for and someone saying that science has shown that those things do not exist because there is no verifiable evidence.
It is confusing at times just which one of these is being used by an atheist or even if there is any real difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless it is true

Sure. It's also meaningless.

and it should not need to be repeated just because some people don't like the idea of things being unfalsifiable and want to eliminate them, especially the pesky God thing that cannot be falsified.

It has nothing to with not "liking the idea" and everything with such models to be completely useless and meaningless.

There's literally an infinite number of them. Only limited by your own imagination.
And zero ways to properly distinguish any of them from non-existent things, or from one another.

It's a waste of time and energy.

It's also not that they are "eliminated". It's rather that they are simply ignored. They serve no purpose. They are irrelevant to everything.

It's the potential source of all the answers that science cannot supply.

lol, no.

It is just my understanding of "scientism" is a belief that science is capable of supplying answers that it is not capable of supplying.

Then it is not relevant here.
Because I am not claiming that science can answer the question if god exists.
In fact, I'm literally acknowledging that it can't, because one can't falsify the unfalsifiable by definition.

I'm also saying that the unfalsifiable is meaningless and irrelevant.
It adds nothing of use and it is indistinguishable from things that don't even exist.
It can't get any more irrelevant then that.......

There is no doubt a difference between someone not believing what there is no verifiable evidence for and someone saying that science has shown that those things do not exist because there is no verifiable evidence.

I have yet to meet someone who says the latter.

It is confusing at times just which one of these is being used by an atheist or even if there is any real difference.

It's only confusing to you because these are strawmen that keep being repeated ad nauseum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We have been over this surely. Science is limited. It cannot eliminate God or the need for God. Theology is not a discipline of science and evidence for God is not scientific evidence. There is no burden of proof on theology unless theology is a science and was able to show God and spirit and the supernatural exist scientifically.
For people who reject other sorts of evidence and reject faith and claim science and only science, to these people God and spirit and the supernatural need to be shown scientifically or rejected. But that is wanting science to do what science cannot do. It is scientism and is a religious type of faith in science and the ability of humanity.

And now we're back to you claiming you can detect the undetectable without being able to demonstrate how, and poo-pooing the only useful methodology we have for discerning true claims from false ones about the world we live in.
Round and round and round ...

When you can demonstrate that scientific explanations require God(s) to be included for them to work and make sense, then get back to us. Until then, you're just making stuff up and asserting unfalsifiable claims.

There is a burden of proof on anyone making a claim and asserting it as fact. No matter what it is. You don't get a special pass for religious beliefs. And the fact that you want one, speaks volumes.

 

[Alien826]

I admit I don't know much about time or other dimensions and what can be done with access to all dimensions, including a spiritual realm with possibly no dimensions that we know anything about.

I repeat, no dimensions and no time equals no existence. Can something of zero size exist? Can something exist for zero time? I understand that's not exactly what you said but people do throw about the idea that god lives in some place "outside time and space" a little recklessly.

Your analogy seems to be saying to live in the here and now and don't worry about anything else.

Though that could be good advice, it's not what I meant. I'm suggesting that believers should concentrate on what's "close" and easily experienced rather than all this mystical stuff about omni attributes and extra dimensions that they have no hope of confirming. For what it's worth, in my brief excursion into belief some years back, that was what I did. I admitted that I had no way of verifying most of the claims that religions make about god, but had some personal experience that convinced me that "something" was there. I started from that point and tried to progress one step at a time.

It is true that we cannot find out the anything else unless we have access to some sort of revelations from a source that knows.
Some people believe one source, other people believe other sources and some believe nothing at all.

Unfortunately, all the sources are or were humans who claim certain knowledge and experience. They may be right or wrong, and most likely most of them are sincere (I mean people like Baha'is "messengers"), but their differing "revelations" were a red flag to me.

Let me add something that impressed me, years ago. I was looking for a church to attend and spoke to several ministers. I would ask them "Why are you a Christian", expecting all kinds of Bible quotes or theology. The best answer I got was "It works for me".