Science and God

[viole]

I'm 100% sure God exist

I asked for evidence. Not what theists are sure of.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

Prager University (which is not a university, or even a school) is preceeded by it's reputation for it's Youtube videos which cherry-pick information, ignore counter valid arguments, and often simply lie. It is not a valid source of information if you wish to undo centuries of accumulated scientific research that points in the opposite direction. You have to present an alternate valid hypothesis which at the very least incorporates all of the information known so far. Then you must find a way to test the hypothesis. We can wait.......

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm 100% sure God exist

Explain how you can be 100% sure of anything, other than things like the logical absolutes, etc.

 

[Darkforbid]

Explain how you can be 100% sure of anything, other than things like the logical absolutes, etc.

Funny, atheists thinking they're sceptical. A concept most have little understanding of. Childish argument, theological ineptitude and shutter minds,,,

 

[Thief]

I asked for evidence. Not what theists are sure of.

Ciao

- viole

I am sure....
Cause and effect

God is the Cause
the universe is the effect

 

[Milton Platt]

Funny, atheists thinking they're sceptical. A concept most have little understanding of. Childish argument, theological ineptitude and shutter minds,,,

Funny, people who lump millions of individuals under a broad generalization.
Funny, people who think they know the understanding of all those individuals.
Funny, people who dodge questions of a fundamental philosophical nature.

Hey, that’s easy, isn’t it....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Funny, people who lump millions of individuals under a broad generalization.
Funny, people who think they know the understanding of all those individuals.
Funny, people who dodge questions of a fundamental philosophical nature.

Hey, that’s easy, isn’t it....

So you can answer that with reason and logic and don't take your own thoughts for granted: Questions of a fundamental philosophical nature.
Here is cognitive relativism:

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Note (2). In effect it says it is unknown what reality really is.

 

[Milton Platt]

So you can answer that with reason and logic and don't take your own thoughts for granted: Questions of a fundamental philosophical nature.
Here is cognitive relativism:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Note (2). In effect it says it is unknown what reality really is.

Right, so you can’t be 100 percent sure of anything. That was my only point. Not quibbling over whether you hold a particular belief, only over the ability to be 100 percent certain it is true in fact

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, so you can’t be 100 percent sure of anything. That was my only point. Not quibbling over whether you hold a particular belief, only over the ability to be 100 percent certain it is true in fact

The joke about uncertainty is that, if I am uncertain, I am certain of that and then I do something else, if able to do so.

 

[Polymath257]

Explain how you can be 100% sure of anything, other than things like the logical absolutes, etc.

I'm not 100% certain of 'logical absolutes'. Could you give me examples?

 

[Polymath257]

Funny, atheists thinking they're sceptical. A concept most have little understanding of. Childish argument, theological ineptitude and shutter minds,,,

Or, perhaps, just a different set of basic assumptions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not 100% certain of 'logical absolutes'. Could you give me examples?

One is a deduction:
Premise: A is B
Premise: B is C
Therefore(deduction) A is C

The standard view is that this is true(valid) for all worlds(absolute). But if you look closer that might not be true, because if that is caused by the world as such with the effect being the deduction, then if the world was different then it might not be true.
Another way to question it, is to observe that it is a process in brain and thus not absolute for the world, but absolute in the brain, because of how the brain is wired(cognition).
I am playing cognitive relativism with logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or, perhaps, just a different set of basic assumptions.

Are you going cognitive relativism?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you going cognitive relativism?

Nope. But I do acknowledge that people use different sets of assumptions, whether or not they are the *correct* ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

I think it's funny how you "know" that that's the reason and automatically assume that it can't be because whatever the video is saying might be incorrect or not sensible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And people keep saying the probability argument is a dead end. But don-t it need explanation. Its odd that the universe is like minesweeper, full of bombs, and we exist on a knife's edge. The odds against life existing keep going up not down.

Some cosmic force sustaining life in all its complexity, and fragility. Heck, its odd that nature makes food, and no one notices that that is peculiar.

And that's pretty much a fine example of the argument from incredulity...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiring" the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

I don't think anyone is demanding such.
It rather seems to me that such isn't "evidence" which provides rational support for claims. In fact, they pretty much are claims on their own. Claims that are in need of actual evidence.

Such "evidence" is wortless to me, just as the "evidence" of testimony by claimed alien abductees is, likely, worthless to you.

Plus, off course, the known fact that such "evidence" is about the least reliable there is in this universe.

 

[usfan]

Plus, off course, the known fact that such "evidence" is about the least reliable there is in this universe.

Judging the credibility of any evidence.. testimony, facts, inferred, etc, is the prerogative of each person. They can either look for affirmation for what they are comfortable with, or they can open their minds to possibility, and perhaps grow in awareness, knowledge, and perspective.

Closed minds are enemies of knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Judging the credibility of any evidence.. testimony, facts, inferred, etc, is the prerogative of each person.

Testimony is not evidence. Testimony are essentially claims.
A person claiming to have seen something, experienced something.
That's what "testimony" is. Claims.

They can either look for affirmation for what they are comfortable with, or they can open their minds to possibility, and perhaps grow in awareness, knowledge, and perspective.

Closed minds are enemies of knowledge.

Being open minded means to being open to evidence showing you wrong. Being willing to honestly evaluate evidence for things counter to your beliefs.

It does not mean believing whatever on weak evidence.
All to oftenly closedmindedness is being confused with being sceptical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Being open minded means to being open to evidence showing you wrong. Being willing to honestly evaluate evidence for things counter to your beliefs.
...

Would you please explain that? What evidence do you have for that? How do you know it? Have you honestly evaluated the evidence for that? You know, been skeptical of it? And been open-minded about how you know that?