XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: Dean"@gmail.com
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?
>
>> 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.
>
> What good is the development of an explanatory framework if it can't be
> relied on?
>
>> Richard Lowontin
>> darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2005/07/darwinian-fundam
ntalist-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)
|
