Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Audie]

I find the same attitude from some Christian’s when presented evidence for the truth of Islam. Some Christians will even deny personal experience from Muslims while expecting you to believe their personal experience or working of prayer.

The bottom line is the evidence presented for Christianity is not good enough for belief. However everyone’s basis for belief is different. Generally the reasons christians reject Islam’s claims are the same reasons I reject christian claims.

This is why determining truth through science is better since there are no truths in science only things that have not been shown to be false yet. Gravity is a great example. Newton described it correctly but had no idea the connection until Einstein figured it out. Anyone can confirm these facts and many have. Religious claims cannot be tested or repeated. When we try they fail.

Impossible to present the " truth" of islam

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Impossible to present the " truth" of islam

How can you demonstrate this claim is true?

 

[Audie]

How can you demonstrate this claim is true?

Do you feel that would be a reasonable,
nay, eminently sane and credible response
if I'd said the same about Batboy's Secret
Lab on the Moon?

 

[Ostronomos]

You are barking up the wrong tree. These words “space”, “time”, “special relativity” and “quantum mechanics” refer not to things which can be relational objects, they refer to process abstractions which are used in explanation of phenomena.

My point is that if we maintain the proposition that reality is the set of all things that exist, then how do we account for those process abstractions? The very notion demands that reality be more than material, but ineffable as well. The only logical conclusion to draw from the statement that reality is the set of all things that exist, is that it is both the subset as well as the powerset of itself.

On the topic of words and their meaningful implications...

We can see that the words "reality" and "exists" may be interchangeable, but we then see that some words possess greater generality than others, such as "matter" and "material", or even "physical". Therefore, it leads us to ask, what is reality if not matter? Is it Being?

The same with the term “home run”. I cannot perceive a special relativity, a time, or a home run via my senses, I can only conceive of them by observing the relations between the objects which I can perceive, such as a baseball, a bat, an outfield wall, etc. I determine that these things exist by means of the changing relations between the objects which I can perceive with my senses. “God”, however, is posited to be a relational object, and so demands evidence before it can be said to exist. Your analogy is false.

The evidence would rely on the nature of reality and the limitations of the senses. I for one have seen God, but once. He was not material. He appeared before me in the form of a transparent, non-material, transmorgriphying yet intelligent, Being. This was after I boldly darted through my basement in the pitch blackness of the dark, thus inspiring fear in the surrounding demons during my ineffable transcendent reality-generating experience.

Please show me one respected professional philosopher who is a theist. Even Baruch Spinoza, in the hyper-religious milieu which he inhabited and in the age within which he lived, was an atheist. The concept of God does not hold rational water as pertains to the attribution of belief.

This is because any respected philosopher who is a theist has failed to prove the existence of God. Langan and I have.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you feel that would be a reasonable,
nay, eminently sane and credible response
if I'd said the same about Batboy's Secret
Lab on the Moon?

The fact is impossibility needs to be demonstrated. I don't believe Islam's claims just as I don't believe your lab on the moon claims. We can go to the moon and find out if your lab claim is true or not so it is not impossible to prove that claim, how do you demonstrate that it is impossible to provide evidence that Islam is true?

 

[PureX]

Actually, we do know at least *some* of what it does. For example, as you said, it does NOT interact with ordinary matter (at least not very strongly). From other data, it doesn't interact with itself very much either (otherwise it would clump more than the gravitational lensing data allows).

As I wrote, we "know" nothing.

So the likelihood of minds being made of dark matter or dark energy is very low.

Since we know nothing of it, posing any likelihood is just gross hubris.

is there any reason to think otherwise? Until there is evidence of such, it is reasonable to suppose this is how things are.

That is illogical.

Ascertaining no evidence is only evidence of our unknowing. And in that unknowing, all things become possible. Pretending otherwise is just biased hubris.

Potentially, but not all that likely given what we do know about them.

But we don't know anything about them. Speculation is not knowing. If they don't interact with the universe as we understand it, then they are apparently not being governed by the same set of possibilities and limitations. Meaning that what you or I think can't happen in this universe may happen in that one.

 

[Polymath257]

As I wrote, we "know" nothing.

Not true. We know, for example, that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter via gravity. We know that it can bend light through gravity. We know where it clumps via the ways that it bends light. That tells us how well it interacts with itself.

Since we know nothing of it, posing any likelihood is just gross hubris.

But we *do* know many things about it. We don't know what subatomic particles it is made from, but we do know many of its properties.

That is illogical.

Ascertaining no evidence is only evidence of our unknowing. And in that unknowing, all things become possible. Pretending otherwise is just biased hubris.

You seem to like that word. You also seem to like thinking that we know nothing. But the simple fact that you can write your ideas on a keyboard and send them into the internet and have others respond means we do know a great deal.

But we don't know anything about them. Speculation is not knowing.

But, again, we *do* know some things. We know, for example, about how much there is. We know how it is distributed. We know how well it interacts with ordinary matter and with itself. These things are not simply speculation, but are based on evidence and testing.

If they don't interact with the universe as we understand it, then they are apparently not being governed by the same set of possibilities and limitations. Meaning that what you or I think can't happen in this universe may happen in that one.

But they *do* interact with the universe as we understand it. If they didn't, we could not know how much of each there is. In particular, we know a fair amount about how each interacts with ordinary matter via gravity.

Further, if there were no interactions at all, nobody would have proposed their existence.

But, dark matter and dark energy don't interact ordinary matter via electromagnetism (or, if they do, they do so very weakly). They don't interact via the strong or weak nuclear forces (if they did, we would be able to detect them in other ways than simply via gravity).

 

[Audie]

The fact is impossibility needs to be demonstrated. I don't believe Islam's claims just as I don't believe your lab on the moon claims. We can go to the moon and find out if your lab claim is true or not so it is not impossible to prove that claim, how do you demonstrate that it is impossible to provide evidence that Islam is true?

His lab might be invisible.
You can't say it's impossible.

If we may apply the "reasonable person" concept
asis done in court and say it's impossible for the
suspect to have robbed the bank in Tokyo
whilst having high tea with QEII in London,
we can also say Batboys Lab, and, the vastly
more fantastical "truth" of " islam" are also
impossible.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

His lab might be invisible.
You can't say it's impossible.

But the point is that we can go to the moon and see if it is there even if it is invisible we can touch it or detect in by other means. How can you show that it is impossible for it to be there?

If we may apply the "reasonable person" concept
asis done in court and say it's impossible for the
suspect to have robbed the bank in Tokyo
whilst having high tea with QEII in London,
we can also say Batboys Lab, and, the vastly
more fantastical "truth" of " islam" are also
impossible.

No, we can demonstrate that one person cannot be in two places at once. We may be able to demonstrate that some claims of Islam are false or impossible, however other claims you can't demonstrate they are impossible. Such as how do you show that prayer is not the cause of healing for example? I don't think you can.

 

[PureX]

Not true. We know, for example, that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter via gravity. We know that it can bend light through gravity. We know where it clumps via the ways that it bends light. That tells us how well it interacts with itself.

We don't "know" any of that. This is your 'scientism' coming out. Some cosmologists postulate this based on an axtraordinarily small bit of data. This does not equate to "knowledge" by anyone's definition.

But we *do* know many things about it. We don't know what subatomic particles it is made from, but we do know many of its properties.

Name 5.

You seem to like that word. You also seem to like thinking that we know nothing.

The problem is (and it's getting worse these days) that the "scientism crowd" thinks that if any scientific "evidence" exist to suggest an hypothesis, then it has automatically become incontestable "knowledge". Much as you are doing, here. And this idiotic chain of thought is becoming commonplace on so many of these threads and among so many posters that I am having to try and point out the absurdity of it constantly. And mostly to no avail, because the habit of it is becoming epidemic as the cult of "scientism" is spreading.

But the simple fact that you can write your ideas on a keyboard and send them into the internet and have others respond means we do know a great deal.

This is an absurd analogy.

A quorum of top cosmologists estimated a few years ago that the sum total of all we know about the universe is about 13% of all there is to be known about it. And that figure is so small that it logically implies it's own inaccuracy in favor of an exaggerated degree. And now imagine what the likelihood is that if we were to know all that we currently do not know about the universe, how drastically our idea of it would change. And yet here you are presuming that we "know" what is and isn't possible in an area of the universe that we know virtually nothing about. And doing so "automatically" because you have adopted the atheist's religion of believing that if a scientist says he has some "objective evidence" of "X", then "X" must be true. Physicality has become their replacement God, and the "evidence of science" has become it's prophet of truth. And the true believers believe this all automatically, without skepticism or doubt. Just like their counterparts do the old God and his prophets of truth.

But, again, we *do* know some things. We know, for example, about how much there is.

No, we don't know that either. We guess. We hypothesize. We extrapolate from data that we aren't even sure relates. This is not "knowing".

We know how it is distributed. We know how well it interacts with ordinary matter and with itself. These things are not simply speculation, but are based on evidence and testing.

But evidence is not truth. And "based on" is not knowing anything. Why can't you see this? Are you that afraid of being wrong?

But they *do* interact with the universe as we understand it.

Well, actually, no. The fact that light has to bend around it implies that it does not interact with it. That whatever this is, it does not offer itself as a medium. Implying that it does not exist by the same "rules".

If they didn't, we could not know how much of each there is. In particular, we know a fair amount about how each interacts with ordinary matter via gravity.

We don't know anything. All of what you're posting is just hypothetical speculation based on questionably relative observations that you are foolishly labeling "knowledge".

Further, if there were no interactions at all, nobody would have proposed their existence.

What you are calling "interaction" is not the proper terminology. It's just re-action, not interaction. When a wave bounces off a solid object they are not "interacting". The wave is simply re-acting to that which it cannot "interact" with. If the wave moves the object, then they are interacting. But in this instance, we have no information whatever that there is any actual interaction taking place.

But, dark matter and dark energy don't interact ordinary matter via electromagnetism (or, if they do, they do so very weakly). They don't interact via the strong or weak nuclear forces (if they did, we would be able to detect them in other ways than simply via gravity).

You need to take into account how much of the information is coming from inside your own mind, and is then effecting your conclusions. You are viewing this as if it's part of this universe, and therefor subject to all the same "rules" that you think you know to govern this universe. But so far it appears NOT to be part of this universe, nor to obey the same "rules". In which case it's anyone's guess what rules it would obey. And we don't even know, yet, what rules THIS universe obeys.

 

[Audie]

But the point is that we can go to the moon and see if it is there even if it is invisible we can touch it or detect in by other means. How can you show that it is impossible for it to be there?

No, we can demonstrate that one person cannot be in two places at once. We may be able to demonstrate that some claims of Islam are false or impossible, however other claims you can't demonstrate they are impossible. Such as how do you show that prayer is not the cause of healing for example? I don't think you can.

Yeah. Well, like. Whatevs.
Batboy could have put it at the center of the
moon or fill everyone's mind with confusion rays
so they can't remember why they are there.

If you feel that " islam" or " Noah's ark" or the
gold books of Mormon are possible Truth goWhatever.

I see nothing sensible to discuss.

 

[Audie]

We don't "know" any of that. This is your 'scientism' coming out. Some cosmologists postulate this based on an axtraordinarily small bit of data. This does not equate to "knowledge" by anyone's definition.

Name 5.

The problem is (and it's getting worse these days) that the "scientism crowd" thinks that if any scientific "evidence" exist to suggest an hypothesis, then it has automatically become incontestable "knowledge". Much as you are doing, here. And this idiotic chain of thought is becoming commonplace on so many of these threads and among so many posters that I am having to try and point out the absurdity of it constantly. And mostly to no avail, because the habit of it is becoming epidemic as the cult of "scientism" is spreading.

This is an absurd analogy.

A quorum of top cosmologists estimated a few years ago that the sum total of all we know about the universe is about 13% of all there is to be know about it. And that figure is so small that it logically implies it's own inaccuracy in favor of an exaggerated degree. And now imagine what the likelihood is that if we were to know all that we currently do not know about the universe, how drastically our idea of it would change. And yet here you are presuming that we "know" what is and isn't possible in an area of the universe that we know virtually nothing about. And doing so "automatically" because you have adopted the atheist religion believing that if a scientist says he has some "objective evidence" of "X", then "X" must be true. Physicality has become the replacement God, and the "evidence of science" has become it's prophet of truth. And the truth believers believe this all withut skepticism or doubt. Just like they dod the old God and prophet of truth.

No, we don't know that either. We guess. We hypothesize. We extrapolate from data that we aren't even sure relates. This is not "knowing".

But evidence is not truth. And "based on" is not knowing anything. Why can't you see this? Are you that afraid of being wrong?

Well, actually, no. The fact that light has to bend around it implies that it does not interact with it. That whatever this is, it does not offer itself as a medium. Implying that it does not exist by the same "rules".

We don't know anything. All of what you're posting is just hypothetical speculation based on questionably relative observations that you are foolishly labeling "knowledge".

What you are calling "interaction" is not the proper terminology. It's just re-action, not interaction. When a wave bounces off a solid object they are not "interacting". The wave is simply re-acting to that which it cannot "interact" with.

You need to take into account how much of the information is coming from inside your own mind, and is then effecting your conclusions. You are viewing this as if it's part of this universe, and therefor subject to all the same "rules" that you think you know to govern this universe. But so far it appears NOT to be part of this universe, nor to obey the same "rules". In which case it's anyone's guess what rules it would obey. And we don't even know, yet, what rules THIS universe obeys.

" Scientism" again.
What sort of - ism is it when you make things
up ( like what yecs do) and state them as facts?

You feel that making up " facts" is somehow
superior to a technically loose application of the
word " know" instead of a clunky phrase full of
data and qualifiers?

Inquiring minds would like to understand
the intellectual integrity involved.

 

[viole]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

What extremes? Should we say we only mildly disbelieve God?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

We do not need that. Martyrdom is useless towards providing evidence of the belief leading to that. People are ready to sacrifice their lives, and the lives of their families, doe instance, on account of their belief that some aliens hiding behind a comet will pick their souls up,, lol.

That alone should put to rest the association “readiness to die” with “reliability of the belief”. I would say that the association “readiness to die” with “delusion” or “propensity to believe anything”, is more likely.

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

What extremes? Should we say we only mildly disbelieve God?

ciao

- viole

Winner frubal

 

[PureX]

What extremes? Should we say we only mildly disbelieve God?

ciao

- viole

Or how about, "I don't know, I just don't like the idea". That would seem to me to be a whole lot more honest coming from most of the people claiming to be atheists.

 

[Audie]

Or how about, "I don't know, I just don't like the idea". That would seem to me to be a whole lot more honest coming from most of the people claiming to be atheists.

People who make things up, including the above,
are in a poor position to speak of honesty.

 

[viole]

Or how about, "I don't know, I just don't like the idea". That would seem to me to be a whole lot more honest coming from most of the people claiming to be atheists.

That would entail that atheists are such because they do not like the idea. is that so?

that does not obtain. I know at least an atheist who likes the idea of eternal blissful life. Maybe many do. Alas, they would be like me liking the idea that drinking a lot of vodka will make me live until 120. when it would be totally irrational to believe that.

ergo, liking and believing,, are in general not correlated in rational people. Actually, the correlation should be inverted. The more we like an idea, the more skeptical we should be about it. Personally, I tend to not believe ides that I like, without compensating evidence.

But your reply begs the next question: do theists believe in God because they like the idea?

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

That would entail that atheists are such because they do not like the idea. is that so?

that does not obtain. I know at least an atheist who likes the idea of eternal blissful life. Maybe many do. Alas, they would be like me liking the idea that drinking a lot of vodka will make me live until 120. when it would be totally irrational to believe that.

ergo, liking and believing,, are in general not correlated in rational people. Personally, I tend to not believe ides that I like, without compensating evidence.

But your reply begs the next question: do theists believe in God because they like the idea?

ciao

- viole

Winner frubal, with chocolate sprinkles

 

[F1fan]

Or how about, "I don't know, I just don't like the idea". That would seem to me to be a whole lot more honest coming from most of the people claiming to be atheists.

You only apply "we don't know" to things in science that we DO know, but never religious ideas that not only lack evidence but are also inconsistent with what we DO know about reality.