XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:08:37 -0400, 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?
How do you think you mean "problems". Why do you think it would have to
involve problems for God in order for him to produce and influence the
development of life on this planet or anywhere else?
>> 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."
>
>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)
|
