You Can't Argue Against God

[stvdv]

You appear to accuse science of being "blind", whereas to the best of my observation, science is far from blind.

Spirituality without Science is lame
Science without Spirituality is blind

 

[blü 2]

But we don't need more control.

Indeed we do. Science and consequent technology have helped make this mess. and prayer dang sure won't be enough to get us out of it.

What we need is more wisdom.

Indeed. But wisdom ignorant of or ignoring facts is not much use. Science is a prodigious source of facts. (By 'fact' I mean an accurate statement about a real state of affairs.)

I do not accuse science of anything but being science. The problem is that you cannot see science as science because all you can see is your own hyper-glorified mythical version of science.

I don't have a hyper-glorified mythical version of science. I have a reasoned understanding of and admiration for science's achievements.

And it will be humans ─ as you say, the ones who got us into this mess ─ who will have to get us out, and I'm dang sure prayer isn't going to cut it.

 

[blü 2]

Spirituality without Science is lame
Science without Spirituality is blind

What definition of "spirituality" are you using?

 

[stvdv]

Spirituality without Science is lame
Science without Spirituality is blind

What definition of "spirituality" are you using?

Thank you for the useful question

I use "Love", the pure form, Selfless

Example: Science better thinks twice before inventing/producing mass destruction weapons like Atom bomb, and worse. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned

 

[F1fan]

Yes, it's all very silly, isn't it. People that have no idea what God is ...

Well feel free to explain what God is, and how it exists. Use facts. If you don't, then I have no choice but to defer to the logical default and reject your claim.

and yet believe that there is no God,

What God is there? Use facts. If you can't demonstrate any God exists then it's sound and wise to not assume any exist given it's an extraordinary claim.

then busily proclaiming that everyone else's idea of God is wrong, and is just silly superstition.

It's amazing how many Gods there are from differnt minds that claim to know these diverse Gods exist somehow.

And the amazing thing is that no matter how many times the irrationality of this behavior is pointed out to them, they still can't see it.

We do see the irony in what you claim and say, like in these quotes of yours that go claimed, but unverified.

They have so fully convinced themselves that what they don't know means they know more than everyone else.

Odd that the believers are first in line not knowing what they claim exists. They claim to know their God exists, yet can't show or explain how they know any such thing. Why should critical thinker become subject to people who can't define what they claim to relate to, and claim to know? The lack of an explanation, the lack of facts, is what invalidates their claim of knowledge, and also any implication of superiority in the matter. So less smugness, more evidence.

 

[Sargonski]

I can't say that I understand what that means after the first clause. I did define what it is that I am saying that I don't believe exists when I say that I don't have a god belief. And although I believe many things, I "believe in" nothing. That phrase implies faith to me.

Wisdom is a type of knowledge. It's knowing how to live to achieve one's ultimate goals, which is usually to be comfortable and content. Lower-level knowledge is knowing how to achieve your immediate goals, that is, knowing how the world works. The higher-level knowledge is knowing how to work those levers to achieve those ultimate goals.

I believe that you didn't understand him. He wrote, "Of course I recognize the concept of God (and gods, and all supernatural entities). The only way in which such things are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains." What he's telling you is that gods are not known to exist, that the idea of a god has no known real referent. Compare wolves and werewolves. Both are concepts, but one has an actual referent in reality. One refers to something actual and the other to something only imagined.

No.. you did not define what you are saying.. because you have not defined what it is you don't believe in.. "I don't believe in God" .. Vunderbar .. what does that even mean lets one defines God.

What is the minimum abount of power some entity would have to show you .. for you to say .. that thing is a God ? and why is this such a friggen complicaged question .. not just you .. there are like 7 others on both sides of the fence -- secular-Theocratic .. just out-right refuse to define what we are calling a God here.

So .. using one's individual brain ... please tell me what this entity would have to do to impress you .. more than the Shania Twain version "don't impress me much"

 

[F1fan]

No.. you did not define what you are saying.. because you have not defined what it is you don't believe in.. "I don't believe in God" .. Vunderbar .. what does that even mean lets one defines God.

I notice you avoid defining God, as if you fear it will justify non-belief.

What is the minimum abount of power some entity would have to show you .. for you to say .. that thing is a God ? and why is this such a friggen complicaged question .. not just you .. there are like 7 others on both sides of the fence -- secular-Theocratic .. just out-right refuse to define what we are calling a God here.

Yes, why is it so hard for you to describe your God?

So .. using one's individual brain ... please tell me what this entity would have to do to impress you .. more than the Shania Twain version "don't impress me much"

Exist, and eliminate cancer. I'd be impressed. Would you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No and unknown.

Then how do you know that water is H2O?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are unable to give evidence for science being succesful

I already did. Multiple times. Off course, in the sense that *I* use the word "successful". Not in your strawman meaning.

Here it is again: nukes explode.

, as succesful is your subjective personal meannig.

No.

Science is factually successful as a method to find out how things work and what the nature of things is.
Nukes explode.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then how do you know that water is H2O?

I use a different belief of to know than the usual one used with science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, your subjective personal opinion as your world.

Nukes exploded.
That's not a personal opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I already did. Multiple times. Off course, in the sense that *I* use the word "successful". Not in your strawman meaning.

Here it is again: nukes explode.


No.

Science is factually successful as a method to find out how things work and what the nature of things is.
Nukes explode.

Succes is not a fact as far as I can tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nukes exploded.
That's not a personal opinion.

No, but that is a succes is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Example: Science better thinks twice before inventing/producing mass destruction weapons like Atom bomb, and worse.

Science doesn't "invent" or "produce" nukes.
Science as a method helps in figuring out what atoms are and how they work. From science comes atomic theory.

Engineers then use that science to build tech.
Furthermore, the decision and order to create nuclear weapons comes from politicians. Not from scientists or engineers.

Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned

The very same science that allows to build nuclear weapons also allows to build medical equipment that has saved countless more lives then nukes have cost btw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I use a different belief of to know than the usual one used with science.

Sounds like a dodge.

Please actually answer the question.

If not through science, how do you know water is H2O?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sounds like a dodge.

Please actually answer the question.

If not through science, how do you know water is H2O?

Well, you use Popper in effect. I use cohherence and pragmatism in effect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, you use Popper in effect. I use cohherence and pragmatism in effect.

So how does that help in knowing that water is H2O

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So how does that help in knowing that water is H2O

Well, it is a different understanding of what qualifies as knowledge. To me it is knowledge if it overall fits into what makes sense(weak cohherence) and appears to work(pragmatism).
You require emperical testing as per Popper. That is another version.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it is a different understanding of what qualifies as knowledge. To me it is knowledge if it overall fits into what makes sense(weak cohherence) and appears to work(pragmatism).
You require emperical testing as per Popper. That is another version.

So how does that help in knowing that water is H2O


Sorry if I sound like a broken record. I wouldn't have to if you would just give a straight answer to the question.

I suspect that the reason you don't is because you realize that scientific inquiry is the ONLY reason you know water consists of H2O

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you have not defined what it is you don't believe in.

I defined what a god is when I use the word. I guess you didn't read it:

"Incidentally, my working definition of a god in the Abrahamic (monotheistic) sense is a sentient universe creator. For polytheistic pantheons, a god is an aspect of nature personified. I don't have any reason to believe that anything like the former exists, and no reason to disagree with the polytheists. If they want to give the wind a name, for example, I don't see anything to argue with there. It's poetry, like the phrases Mother Nature, Father Time, or the man in the moon." source

What is the minimum abount of power some entity would have to show you .. for you to say .. that thing is a God ?

A god in the first sense? It would have to be conscious and to create a universe.

please tell me what this entity would have to do to impress you

Impress or convince me that it was a god as I've defined it?

I've given you a definitive test for a god - create a universe. There may be others. I would be very impressed if it could make me immaterial, omniscient, and omnipotent. Of course, even these tests don't demonstrate supernaturalism, as sufficiently advanced extraterrestrials which came to be through natural mechanism (abiogenesis and evolution) might also be able to perform such feats. But I'd be impressed anyway.

Have you ever considered what the default position would become if evolutionary theory were ever falsified? I think it would have to be that some or all of the earth was intelligently designed and deceptively arranged to appear that evolution had occurred naturalistically, wouldn't it? What else could we conclude given all of the data we have today plus that falsifying find?

But we still wouldn't invoke supernaturalism or gods as I've defined them. Naturalistic hypotheses that can account for observations are always more parsimonious and thus preferred.