XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:45:23 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 10/10/2014 5:48 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >> On 10/10/2014 2:08 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>> On 10/10/2014 12:01 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/9/2014 4:52 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>> On 09/10/2014 4:46 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/8/2014 8:26 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:02:55 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/7/2014 9:12 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:45:46 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2014 7:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:27:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2014 9:05 PM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:10:14 -0500, Free Lunch   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:35 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mur@.not.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not believing   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could mean   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing no gods   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many atheists   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        No place(s) in the entire universe? Or just none   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with this planet   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or star system?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are zero gods that are supported by evidence.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>         Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> "should be", WHERE you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit for him   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Science is materialist, thus limited and confined to natural   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> occurrence   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> and natural entities made up of matter, thus the scientific   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> method has   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> no capability to examine and study the unnatural; therefore   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> there   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> no solid, empirical evidence for Deity, since Deity does not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> consist of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> matter.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So you are objecting that science doesn't accept bullshit that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> people   
   >>>>>>>>>>> make up and attribute to some god or other.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I simply stated facts.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Religious claims are not facts.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> What about the above statement, in you opinion, does not portend   
   >>>>>>>> facts?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>      One fact that throws a shadow of doubt on your supposed facts is   
   >>>>>>> the fact   
   >>>>>>> that you not only don't have any idea whether deities are composed of   
   >>>>>>> matter or   
   >>>>>>> not,   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>> you're missing the point, in a later post as was pointed out, this   
   >>>>>> is a   
   >>>>>> christian dogma going back for hundreds of centuries. And whether true   
   >>>>>> or not, this is a fact!   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>> but you don't even have any way of TRYING TO find out. All you have is   
   >>>>>>   faith that your guess is correct, but no reason for it.   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>> As has been pointed out before,  modern science has self imposed   
   >>>>>> restrictions and limitations on itself. Science restricts itself   
   >>>>>> strictly to naturalism - the material universe and energy, thus   
   >>>>>> science   
   >>>>>> can say nothing about religious matters. if you are looking for solid,   
   >>>>>> empirical evidence, of spiritual entities, you will not find it, it's   
   >>>>>> outside the realm on scientific inquiry   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Provided, of course, that these spiritual entities interact with the   
   >>>>> material universe in no way whatsoever. Of course, if that was true   
   >>>>> then   
   >>>>> such entities would be inherently undetectable and there is, in   
   >>>>> principle, no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.   
   >>>>  >   
   >>>> When scientist holds as an apriori commitment to naturalism that only   
   >>>> natural explanations is acceptable_how_can_anyone_know_?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   Yes, I agree this is absurd. However, is there some _indirect_   
   >>>> evidence which can be seen as intelligent involvement in the formation   
   >>>> of the universe and nature? There does exist, what certain scientist say   
   >>>> "appears" to be design in nature, however, you will find few, if any   
   >>>> scientist who will acknowledge this is _actual_ design. Design infers a   
   >>>> designer   
   >>>   
   >>> It also infers a specific problem that the design addresses, assuming   
   >>> that you're using "design" in a non-aesthetic sense. So tell me, what   
   >>> problems does God have that he would need to design anything?   
   >   
   >Ahem. No response?   
   >   
   >>>> and so, an a priori consideration will not allow design in   
   >>>> Biologist, Richard Lowontin's words:   
   >>>> "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an   
   >>>> apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material   
   >>>> explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying   
   >>>> to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we   
   >>>> cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". -   
   >>>   
   >>> That quote continues:   
   >>>      "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say   
   >>>       that anyone who could believe in God could believe   
   >>>       in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is   
   >>>       to allow that at any moment the regularities of   
   >>>       nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."   
   >>>   
   >> Nothing about this follow up altered the statement by Dr. Lewontin.   
   >> Naturalism is the apriori consideration.   
   >   
   >Of course. There's a damn good reason for it. If the supernatural   
   >(assuming that anything supernatural actually exists) were to be   
   >considered,   
      
   "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -   
   Arthur   
   C. Clarke   
      
   >we couldn't explain *anything* with any confidence at all.   
   >   
   >>> What good is the development of an explanatory framework if it can't be   
   >>> relied on?   
   >>>   
   >>>> Richard Lowontin   
   >>>> darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2005/07/darwinian-fund   
   mentalist-manifesto.html   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> - unless you afford the god-like   
   >>>>>> attributes of omnipotence, all-knowing and omniscient to the   
   >>>>>> scientific   
   >>>>>> edifice.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)