94 replies to this topic

[Realist]

J.W.

extremely well put above about morals ... morals are nothing more than social evolution, which unfortunately have been hijacked by religion.

 

I have put this well known Arthur C Clarke quote on here several times before:

 

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."

 

How true that is!

[Destinyjesus3000]

Looks like i have run out of time it is a little after 9pm here and i have not finished but i will post something as promised, not being finished sets me up for the domino effect, new responses and rebuttals before i can respond to the old ones. But i will do what i can. Thanks everyone for patience.

 

Well im very sorry i could not get to everyone there was alot on my plate, i want to do part two tommorrow but not sure if i will be able to, i cannot give a timeframe at this point. If you want a fast response why dont you call me 1 800 NOL OGIC. kidding.... If you want a faster response i am on fb more,message me but i wont give that to anyone, if you been mean to me i wouldnt count on me handing you something that has my wife and my family on it. Only one person here has it here so far and i trust them because of somethings. Further more, again i am not always on here for debate or discussion sometimes just to chat, i do actually want to talk with someone in confidence about a personal life issue that is why i am wanting to get to know people here as well, you all seem loving and intelligent individuals.

 

 

Thanks for your patience, i started from page 1 and 2 working my way up, for the ones i have responded to if i didnt address something please let me know. given my personal circumstances i do not know when i will be back on after this but i will be back, that's a gaurantee, if i dont come back soon people think i ran away, so i will casually say something, but if i dont respond to anything, its not because im ignoring, im simply letting people know i havent high tailed it out of here because people put barbeque sauce on my logic.

 

Well, im new at this and here to grow, given my current knowledge this is all i know but im always wanting to know more. I have never had a more driven passion for questions to my pastors and peers than i have this past year thanks to you guys. Knowledge is not power but applied knowledge is, however misused power will lead to destruction.

 

Realist, My other personal quote had nothing to do with religion lol sry you took it that way, just general quote bud. Antlerman thanks i could use a good laugh, although i do not get the joke im a bit slow, hoenstly

Edited by Destinyjesus3000, 12 January 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[Destinyjesus3000]

Part 1

 

To bornagainathiest

 

Thanks for your Response my friend, I like your writing style and how you break things down, I can learn a lot from you, how did you end up on this site? What happened that made you who you are today? Without further adue I try to tackle some of your tough questions

 

Science and faith don’t mix

 

My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time perhaps you can shed some light, To me it seems circular, if science detects only natural then why expect it to detect supernatural and then say that only the natural exists, if don’t believe all there is the natural, then you cant hold a scientific belief, thing is just because science cant detect the supernatural doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Just because I cant see Spectrox hiding behind a door about to surprise me with a delicious red velvet cake, doesn’t mean he isn’t there. It seems Science can only do what it is designed to do detect the natural and that’s it, it cannot as you have stated do anything else, so why should it be used as a method to judge the non natural? Goku cannot throw a Haduken and Sakura cant throw a Kamehameha. Let me take this a bit further if I may

You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God. So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists. But evidence for God is another topic, back to science you seem like a nice reasonable guy im sure you know philosophy, this is something I picked up on I believe you have created a genuine category mistake, when we judge something outside of its category, for example if God exists and creator of the universe he wouldn’t be a product of that universe so if we assume that all things could understood just by observing the universe, by necessity one would preclude the existence of God, if we were to look at it objectively, but you wouldn’t be able TO detect him, you would have to use another criteria to judge whether or not God exists. This runs into a problem because atheists has pre creteria that do not allow superatural proof to even occur, so it seems a mute point to then ask for proof of something you would never accept. So God would need to be detected by some methodology even if it wasn’t scientific. What do you suggest? If we say “Currently Unknown” does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition.  We cannot use the scientific method on a different category, So I ask again what do you suggest my friend to detect God? Cant say science because the scientific method, it necessarily defines God out of existence. If this is the case then how would you found out if God exists what kind of things would you look for to determine supernatural involvement? If it cannot detect supernatural by default how would you look for the supernatural anyway? Something that doesn’t comport with the scientific inquiry. This is why I struggle with this I need your help because it reminds me of when I was riding on a merry go round when I was a kid.

 

Mind only create Mind

 

If I am intellectually dishonest with myself then YES a mother does have participation in the Painstakingly creation process of the babies mind. She sticks her hand in her ******* and skillfully weaves the contours of the physical brain and then casts a level 13 spell from pathfinder 3.5 and creates the thoughts of the babies mind. Legit! All the doctor has to do is pull the baby out and Viola!

 

If I AM intellectually honest then the word farfetched is a vast understatement to describe the scenario above, so it seems then we are somewhat on the same page. Page 11… My lack of clarification of Mind only create mind has by few here conjured up many definitions and for that I apologize.

I agree humans can’t directly create the mind, of course not lol, they cant even create a bird, a dog or even a leaf, let alone a complex mind. Science, to my understanding I could be wrong, believes that non intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening?

 

When I say Mind creating Mind, my definition of that phrase is different than what you would proposed, so it was a simple misunderstanding. I agree a human cannot have a direct influence of a mind as I have given a joke scenario above to show that however, perhaps the word “CREATE” is the wrong word to express what I meant, I was in a rush was trying to summarize all of what I mean in a simply way but the message got distorted again I apologize. Maybe using some of your examples I could explain my perspective…..A Human can produce something that has a mind because it also has a mind, A human cannot get pregnant and give birth to a box, a boat, or phoenix down, same with animals they cannot give birth to a alienware computer, a glock, or a gigapet. They can only produce something that has Mind just like it does. Even in the case of evolution being true, ape creating/ or evolving to human, Mind came from mind. This is what I meant when I said Mind can only create Mind.

 

This wasn’t pre assumed that God is the creator there are well arguments to support it, not just God because I want it to be but with deductive reasoings. arguments too many to list, but I will say this, working with an antonymic pair( meaning a scenario that has 2 and only 2 options only) When one of the options is invalidated the other one is validated. By process of elimination it leads to the other choice. Either God exists or he doesn’t exist. Is there a third option?

 

 

 

 

 

To…….Falemon

 

Evolution is inherently intelligent,

 

 Evolution is inherently intelligent,and that the process requires no intelligence to design it, so it is then fair to say that intelligence emerges naturally from random events…..

 The definition for intelligence” capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” What Evidence that evolution is inherently intelligent that it has a brain? exactly HOW does this happen? and how do you Know for Sure??

 

Faith is personal choice, not necessity

 

I believe your definition of faith is different than my definition, psychology 101 tells us that we should define terms or we may both set each other up for accidental redherrings and strawman arguments. You state that certain things wont damage your faith because it required ignoring evidence. I that definition faith can be substituted for the word “opinion“ and it could match perfectly. My opinion could be unaffectedby  anything contrary to what coheres to realty, confirmation bias sets in and its just plain stubborn as you mention, yes using that definition of faith is using it as I it means opinion. people use the word very loosely so definitions should be established I however have a different definition for faith…..

 

To me, Faith is the same as trust and with trust you believe things with lack of evidence, it Does not mean there is NO evidence, it entails there is lack of evidence available and there is no PHYSICAL or VISIBLE evidence. Not all evidence is something you can see hear feel or touch, evidence could be abstract, it could be any data or information which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood. With that being said it is very possible to believe something without physical evidence like truth or logic. You cannot bury them, or dig them up, you cannot, freeze or burn them, and you cant hand it to me in a cup to drink. Yet it is just as real, just like us. Just because you cant SEE something doesn’t mean it is not there. I cant see bed bugs but man they can prove catastrophic if they get out of hand, the big ones you can see but that’s besides the point. So we can deduct that since some evidence can even be a concept and non tangible, not say we should all go ahead start believing anything and everything without seeing, im simply stating that not all evidence is something that you can see and that we cannot  dismiss that fact, people tend to link physical evidence to the only evidence there is. So it is not that faith has no evidence, its that faith lacks physical or visible evidence because it is based on trust.

 

Lets look at an example of some faith evidence, How do you know when your driving on the road that the person who was previously driving next to you just fine one minute, wont suddenly just swerve into you and knock you off the road? What physical evidence do you have to prove that the person wont do that? I think someone said what doesn’t need evidence can be dismissed without evidence, on the flip side what there is no evidence for, can be proved without evidence. If you don’t have physical evidence then should you not believe? The only thing you could do is have reasonable certainty but never be 100% sure. You would by default believe something without having physical evidence to do so, but just because you believed without physical evidence doesn’t mean your belief is invalidated or non true. We get on a plane without knowing the pilots name and sometimes not even seeing his face yet we still have faith enough to ride it. Yet Christians are called out for doing something that everyone else already does. If some has confirmation bias that’s a character flaw, im not speaking of people who do that on purpose. Faith and trust is about the same thing, the very definition of trust in the dictionary has the word faith in it. Sure some People don’t have faith in God, but to say people shouldn’t have faith at all means you cannot trust anything, going to work, school or driving a car. Because we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships.

 

Learning will risk your faith and lead to de converting

 

Well when I said learning, I meant learning about communicating with people here and how to speak with atheists, I have a long way to go and still learning.  Too many Christians, only talk with Christians an so therefore don’t know how to talk with anyone else, because their head is stuffed with a one sided view. I choose to take it a step further. Now, If learning about life, science and way life works threatens my faith then so be it, I rather know truth then believe something because it sounds good. Any case learning is a journey and if your willing to be patient as I walk along it, then I’m happy to have people who care to be a Northern star for me to self discovery. Thanks Falemon…..My names Aaron you? How did you end up believing what you do now bud?

 

To……Spectrox

 

 

Thanks for your inquisitive nature it has always stimulated me, again your other questions I would like to make a separate topic for them from me to you, to address your concerns because I do not want them to get mixed up with these, not to ignore them it would just makes things more complicated, be easier if I can make a separate topic for them and everyone can pitch in after I have answered them, I would like to do that on my next wave of responses if that is okay. If I happen to come across a response or answer to one of those questions in these wave of responses, I will re address it in the other topic as well. And take that mask off, its not Halloween, im sure you have features that any woman would die for

 

“If you're talking about the complexity of the universe and lifeforms, then all I would say is that these things started off simple and became more complex over time. For a creator God to exist and maintain all of reality, he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity come from?”

 

Darn good question, all I do know is that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change?

 

If you are kissing a woman and making her feel special, the second you stop kissing, she stops feeling special….hopefully you will in about less than a millisecond see that this is a bad analogy so lets use another one. If you a playing the piano you are causing the music, if you stop, the music stops. On a No God hypothesis all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order for them to exist and if all things have a cause but there is no uncaused cause this is contradictory. Lets put it this Say Cause is a person and  existence is like gift that Mr cause wants to give to Mrs effect, if there is no gift, then there cannot be anything to give or pass down to the chain of receivers. If everyone has to borrow a Playstation 3 to play Walking dead, but no one actually has it, then no one could ever get it.

 

In the No God hypothesis, there is no God who has no existence by eternal nature then the existence cant be passed down the chain of receivers and we could never get it. But we do get it and we exist. Why does there need to an uncaused cause, why cant there be an endless thing mutally keeping each other in being? Well if I was super drunk I may not be able to stand on my own but if there was 20,000 drunks surrounding me then on stable ground we may be able to keep each other upright, a cause b and be cause c and caused a. this would be weird because Things cannot have a cause and effect at the same time. if something exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must be a being whose existence is not a gift, otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being but nothing in addition to everything, could exist to give it that means nothing would actually be.

[Ravenstar]

(grabs popcorn, comfy blanket, sits back... this could be good)

[mymistake]

About as exciting as playing tick tac toe.  Block-Block-Cat's game   Block-Block-Cat's game   Block-Block oh what do you know . . . Cat's game agian!

[Burnedout]

Here is my response to any Christian who is trying to reconvert me.

 

God:  Accept my son as savior and you will live with me in eternity and there will be no more sorrow or sadness.

 

Mafia Don:  Sign this contract you cannot refuse and nobody will mess with you.  You will never want for money, and your family and business will be protected.

 

God:  Reject my son and you go to Hell.

 

Mafia Don:  Reject my contract and you will find yourself at the bottom of the river in concrete shoes.

 

Which one is extortion?

[Thought2Much]

Science and faith don’t mix
 
My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time perhaps you can shed some light, To me it seems circular, if science detects only natural then why expect it to detect supernatural and then say that only the natural exists, if don’t believe all there is the natural, then you cant hold a scientific belief, thing is just because science cant detect the supernatural doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Just because I cant see Spectrox hiding behind a door about to surprise me with a delicious red velvet cake, doesn’t mean he isn’t there. It seems Science can only do what it is designed to do detect the natural and that’s it, it cannot as you have stated do anything else, so why should it be used as a method to judge the non natural? Goku cannot throw a Haduken and Sakura cant throw a Kamehameha. Let me take this a bit further if I may

You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God. So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists. But evidence for God is another topic, back to science you seem like a nice reasonable guy im sure you know philosophy, this is something I picked up on I believe you have created a genuine category mistake, when we judge something outside of its category, for example if God exists and creator of the universe he wouldn’t be a product of that universe so if we assume that all things could understood just by observing the universe, by necessity one would preclude the existence of God, if we were to look at it objectively, but you wouldn’t be able TO detect him, you would have to use another criteria to judge whether or not God exists. This runs into a problem because atheists has pre creteria that do not allow superatural proof to even occur, so it seems a mute point to then ask for proof of something you would never accept. So God would need to be detected by some methodology even if it wasn’t scientific. What do you suggest? If we say “Currently Unknown” does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition.  We cannot use the scientific method on a different category, So I ask again what do you suggest my friend to detect God? Cant say science because the scientific method, it necessarily defines God out of existence. If this is the case then how would you found out if God exists what kind of things would you look for to determine supernatural involvement? If it cannot detect supernatural by default how would you look for the supernatural anyway? Something that doesn’t comport with the scientific inquiry. This is why I struggle with this I need your help because it reminds me of when I was riding on a merry go round when I was a kid.

You pose some good questions here. The problem is, it is up to the person asserting there is a god to offer evidence of said being. Saying something along the lines of "God is outside of science, and therefore cannot be known" is a cop out.

If you feel like you are on a merry-go-round when trying to figure out how we can measure your god or the supernatural, or if you can't even figure out what criteria would be used to perform such measurements, then it is entirely your (that is, you and the Christians) problem. We have simply stated that there are no measurable effects of the god that you propose. If you want to continue to assert that this god exists, it is up to you to figure out how you prove it to those that don't already "believe because they believe." It is the Christians that are following the circular logic here, not the non-believers. You have even said as much in your post. If you could fix the problem you have pointed out, there wouldn't be any non-believers, because the existence of God would be a readily available fact.

 

Also, please remember, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to back up that claim. Your example of Spectrox hiding behind the door with a cake can easily be confirmed or falsified. Plus, the claim itself isn't extraordinary: we know that Spectrox (at least in online form) exists; we know that doors exist, and that you probably have at least one where you live; we know that cakes exist. The Christian god? We haven't even got the slightest shred of evidence for him, and Christians have so far been completely able to provide any, despite their assertions that evidence of him is "everywhere."

[Spectrox]

Science and faith don’t mix

 

To……Spectrox

 

 

Thanks for your inquisitive nature it has always stimulated me, again your other questions I would like to make a separate topic for them from me to you, to address your concerns because I do not want them to get mixed up with these, not to ignore them it would just makes things more complicated, be easier if I can make a separate topic for them and everyone can pitch in after I have answered them, I would like to do that on my next wave of responses if that is okay. If I happen to come across a response or answer to one of those questions in these wave of responses, I will re address it in the other topic as well. And take that mask off, its not Halloween, im sure you have features that any woman would die for

 

“If you're talking about the complexity of the universe and lifeforms, then all I would say is that these things started off simple and became more complex over time. For a creator God to exist and maintain all of reality, he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity come from?”

 

Darn good question, all I do know is that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change?

 

If you are kissing a woman and making her feel special, the second you stop kissing, she stops feeling special….hopefully you will in about less than a millisecond see that this is a bad analogy so lets use another one. If you a playing the piano you are causing the music, if you stop, the music stops. On a No God hypothesis all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order for them to exist and if all things have a cause but there is no uncaused cause this is contradictory. Lets put it this Say Cause is a person and  existence is like gift that Mr cause wants to give to Mrs effect, if there is no gift, then there cannot be anything to give or pass down to the chain of receivers. If everyone has to borrow a Playstation 3 to play Walking dead, but no one actually has it, then no one could ever get it.

 

In the No God hypothesis, there is no God who has no existence by eternal nature then the existence cant be passed down the chain of receivers and we could never get it. But we do get it and we exist. Why does there need to an uncaused cause, why cant there be an endless thing mutally keeping each other in being? Well if I was super drunk I may not be able to stand on my own but if there was 20,000 drunks surrounding me then on stable ground we may be able to keep each other upright, a cause b and be cause c and caused a. this would be weird because Things cannot have a cause and effect at the same time. if something exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must be a being whose existence is not a gift, otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being but nothing in addition to everything, could exist to give it that means nothing would actually be.

 

Thanks for the response Aaron and I look forward to reading your response to my 11 questions later.

 

The "Science and Faith don't mix" question wasn't from me, but I would just like to say this about your answer - your God either manifests in reality or he doesn't. The Bible describes God as interacting with reality e.g. performing miracles, answering prayers, finding your car keys etc. These necessarily enter the testable realm of science. No miracles can reliably be verified in modern times. So why believe these far-fetched claims from 2000 years ago?  A scientific study many years ago (led by Professor Russell Stannard - a Christian) was conducted on the effectiveness of prayer and showed no evidence of Godly intervention.

 

“If you're talking about the complexity of the universe and lifeforms, then all I would say is that these things started off simple and became more complex over time. For a creator God to exist and maintain all of reality, he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity come from?”

 

And now to answer your response to this question - Christians commonly assert that something cannot come from nothing. Thing is, what do they really mean by nothing? Do they mean non-existence? We don't have a "nothing" that we can examine so we cannot make any assessment of "nothing". All we know is that something comes from something. The Big Bang wasn't necessarily something coming from nothing. In fact, something exploded. It was an expansion event. God didn't necessarily have to light the blue touch paper and stand back.

I would go so far as to say that inductive logic might lead us to feel that probably something cannot come from nothing due to the overwhelming evidence that something comes from something, but it's not a valid assertion to categorically say something cannot come from nothing.

Even if you were to demonstrate beyond doubt that something cannot come from nothing and that a cosmic force existed at the instant of the Big Bang, it gets you no closer to claiming that it was your Christian God that did it. You still have all your work ahead of you.

 

It could have been a Zygon spaceship exploding at the end of a previous universe?

 

The thing with these logical "proofs" for the existence of God is that no apologist I know will have come to their faith through these arguments. They believe first and then use these "proofs" to bolster their unfounded faith. And it just comes across as philosophical bollocks on stilts.

Edited by Spectrox, 13 January 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[falemon]

Hey DJ I will get back to you, it may take a while because you are asking about topics with a lot of depth for which all information is littered with jargon.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman thanks i could use a good laugh, although i do not get the joke im a bit slow, hoenstly

Catholic priests don't marry, Jewish people don't eat pork. So when the priest asks the Rabbi, 'When are you going to come to your senses and have a ham sandwich with me?', the Rabbi's response is "At your wedding", meaning it's as like to happen in changing the priests mind about marriage as it is to the Rabbi in eating pork. In other words, when it comes to religious beliefs, it's not about 'coming to ones senses'. The punch line is nobody here will persuade anyone of anything! It's all religious beliefs!!

[midniterider]

You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God. So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists.

 

 

1. I don't have evidence proving assertion.

2. But I dont have All Knowledge or All Evidence of everything.

3. Therefore assertion could be true.

 

I like what you've done here. :-) This really opens up a world where anything and everything goes. All religions 'could' be true because I don't have All Knowledge to prove them true or false. Yessssss, beautiful. 

 

Everything I say no matter how ridiculous could be true simply because nobody has All Knowledge or All Evidence to the contrary. I could say coins have three sides and you could not argue that they only have two because you do not have All Knowledge or All Evidence. A third side could be discovered in the future. I love this. :-)

 

Now all I have to do is repress common sense...Get thee behind me, rational thought!

[mymistake]

Because we don't have all knowledge therfore Jesus is Satan.  That whole thing about accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior is just a joke from Satan.  There is no heaven.

[Thought2Much]

Science and faith don’t mix
 
My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time...

This is only a hard concept if you're trying to prove the existence of something that has no measurable properties and has given us no indication of having ever existed. For everyone else, this is very, very easy: There is no evidence that the Christian god exists. Therefore, we will not believe that he exists until sufficient evidence is provided to prove his existence.

The only people that find this statement difficult to comprehend are Christians who have backed themselves into an intellectual corner from which they can't reason their way out of. Yahweh can't be proven to exist through poor logic or using the kind of lame analogies that preachers and apologists use to keep their sheep enslaved in their belief system.

[JadedAtheist]

Science and faith don’t mix

 

My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time perhaps you can shed some light, To me it seems circular, if science detects only natural then why expect it to detect supernatural and then say that only the natural exists, if don’t believe all there is the natural, then you cant hold a scientific belief, thing is just because science cant detect the supernatural doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Just because I cant see Spectrox hiding behind a door about to surprise me with a delicious red velvet cake, doesn’t mean he isn’t there. It seems Science can only do what it is designed to do detect the natural and that’s it, it cannot as you have stated do anything else, so why should it be used as a method to judge the non natural? Goku cannot throw a Haduken and Sakura cant throw a Kamehameha. Let me take this a bit further if I may

You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God. So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists. But evidence for God is another topic, back to science you seem like a nice reasonable guy im sure you know philosophy, this is something I picked up on I believe you have created a genuine category mistake, when we judge something outside of its category, for example if God exists and creator of the universe he wouldn’t be a product of that universe so if we assume that all things could understood just by observing the universe, by necessity one would preclude the existence of God, if we were to look at it objectively, but you wouldn’t be able TO detect him, you would have to use another criteria to judge whether or not God exists. This runs into a problem because atheists has pre creteria that do not allow superatural proof to even occur, so it seems a mute point to then ask for proof of something you would never accept. So God would need to be detected by some methodology even if it wasn’t scientific. What do you suggest? If we say “Currently Unknown” does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition.  We cannot use the scientific method on a different category, So I ask again what do you suggest my friend to detect God? Cant say science because the scientific method, it necessarily defines God out of existence. If this is the case then how would you found out if God exists what kind of things would you look for to determine supernatural involvement? If it cannot detect supernatural by default how would you look for the supernatural anyway? Something that doesn’t comport with the scientific inquiry. This is why I struggle with this I need your help because it reminds me of when I was riding on a merry go round when I was a kid.

 

It's impossible to disprove the notion of some types of gods existing. For example, a common deistic view of God is one where God created the universe and everything in it and then left it to be. This is pretty much impossible to disprove with that assertion alone. I cannot disprove that there was no supernatural involvement imitating natural processes to set off the big bang, and guide evolution to where we are at now for example.

 

So, where does this leave us with the Christian god? Well, unlike the deistic god where there is no interaction with humanity that we can inspect and critique the Christian god does interact with humanity. There  are a few ways we can critique the validity of the claims of Christians.

 

Firstly, we can do so philosophically. This is somewhat of a blunt sword approach, depending on the people involved. Here, we question the assertion by Christians of the goodness of God by looking at the issues presented with the problem of evil and the problem of hell. We also look at suffering in the world. Each of these arguably invalidate the Christian concept of God. These to me while true, are not really potent enough.

 

Which leads me to the next point; the next way we can critique the validity of the claims of Christians is by going right to the source: The Bible. If we prove the Bible has discrepancies  then we can discard Christianity alongside with it. Before I continue, would you agree with that statement? Depending on your version of Christianity, you may not believe that it's inerrant or infallible so I would need to take a different route.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Aaron.

 

 

To bornagainathiest

 

Thanks for your Response my friend, I like your writing style and how you break things down, I can learn a lot from you, how did you end up on this site? What happened that made you who you are today? Without further adue I try to tackle some of your tough questions

Well, praise to you for sticking with it.  Your can-do attitude gets a thumbs up from me!

 

Science and faith don’t mix

 

My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time perhaps you can shed some light, To me it seems circular, if science detects only natural then why expect it to detect supernatural and then say that only the natural exists, if don’t believe all there is the natural, then you cant hold a scientific belief, thing is just because science cant detect the supernatural doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist.

 

Correct!

Scientists cannot currently figure out a whole lot of things.  But that doesn't mean that these things don't exist.  They could exist, but currently science cannot say if they do or they don't - so the only possible answer science can give is... "currently unknown."   Also, there's some things that science can never give an answer to - because the question being asked isn't a scientific one, but a religious one.  Here's an example...

.

What is the maximum wingspan of a Cherubim?

This isn't a scientific question that can be investigated by scientists with instruments - it's a religious question about the angels.  Religious questions deal with super-natural things, not natural things.  So, to answer a religious question, you don't use science - you use faith.  Anyway, finding out about an angel's wingspan isn't something a Christian needs to bother themselves with, is it?  God has more important things for Christians to learn, right?  Likewise, what's the point of using prayer or reading scripture to find out something science can give you the answer for? For example...

.

What's the distance from Manhattan to Moscow?

That information isn't in the BIble.  The Bible deals with supernatural and religious questions, which can be answered thru faith and prayer and the study of scripture.  If you want to find out something about the natural world, stick with science.  You see?  The right tool for the right job, as they say.  I don't use a tyre iron to tee off from the green and I don't use a golf iron to change a flat, do I?  Science will tell you things about the natural world and faith/religion/scripture will tell you things about the supernatural.

.

Now here comes the kicker!

 

Q. Can we use scientific data about the natural world to make a super-natural claim?

.

A.  Yes.  No problem there. 

 

But we must make it totally clear, right from the start, that we are making a religious claim about super-natural things, using natural, scientific data to support the claim.  What we can't do is to say that the whole claim is naturalistic science.  It isn't.  Science is the tool for dealing with natural things, not super-natural things, remember?

 

So, if Aaron says he's making the super-natural, religious claim, that.. 'only mind can create mind', that's cool.  If he then presents some natural, scientific data to back this claim up, that's ok too.  But he'd be tripping up if he said that this was a purely natural scientific claim.  Why?  Because science can't make religious claims about super-natural things - it can only deal with natural things.

 

That help?  As I mentioned a while back, it's a case of playing by the rules of persuasion and debate.  Make your claims and cite your evidence, but be careful about how you do it.  Don't mix super-natural things with natural 0nes.  Tyre irons and golfing irons don't mix!

 

 

Just because I cant see Spectrox hiding behind a door about to surprise me with a delicious red velvet cake, doesn’t mean he isn’t there. It seems Science can only do what it is designed to do detect the natural and that’s it, it cannot as you have stated do anything else, so why should it be used as a method to judge the non natural?

 

Ideally it shouldn't, Aaron.  You're right on the money, with this.

It just depends on what you do with science.  Do you use it properly and judge only the natural with it, or do you use it improperly and use it to judge super-natural things?  The right tool for the right job, once again.  If science can't tell you where Spectrox is hiding, then the honest answer has to be..."I don't know", doesn't it?  Maybe prayer can tell you where he is, but that's not a natural and scientific means of finding out is it?  If you find something out super-naturally, please don't call it science, call it what it really is ... religion and faith.

Goku cannot throw a Haduken and Sakura cant throw a Kamehameha. Let me take this a bit further if I may
You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God.

Correct again!

When you say, "On the evidence I've seen so far..." what you're actually saying is that you currently don't know.  But that doesn't mean there isn't a God.  It just means you haven't got the natural, scientific evidence to prove His existence.  You can still believe in God.  But if you do that, you're doing so as a matter of faith, not evidence.

 

So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists. But evidence for God is another topic, back to science you seem like a nice reasonable guy im sure you know philosophy, this is something I picked up on I believe you have created a genuine category mistake, when we judge something outside of its category, for example if God exists and creator of the universe he wouldn’t be a product of that universe so if we assume that all things could understood just by observing the universe, by necessity one would preclude the existence of God, if we were to look at it objectively, but you wouldn’t be able TO detect him, you would have to use another criteria to judge whether or not God exists. This runs into a problem because atheists has pre creteria that do not allow superatural proof to even occur, so it seems a mute point to then ask for proof of something you would never accept. So God would need to be detected by some methodology even if it wasn’t scientific.

 

You raise an excellent point Aaron, but you're laboring under a misapprehension.  One that I'll help straighten out.

.

The pre-criteria you mention are more commonly known as assumptions. 

Fyi, it's not only the Atheists who make them.  Everyone does, to a lesser or greater degree.  The trick is to try and seek out the truth by starting with as few assumptions as possible.  A clean slate, if you like.  This basic assumption (that God's existence cannot be detected or proven using science) is made by all bona fide scientists.  I just take my lead from them, ok?

.

As I've outlined above, natural science can't say anything about the super-natural, but it can be used to support a  super-natural claim, (like mind creating mind), provided the distinction between the religious claim and the supporting science is clearly made. So far, so good?  If so, please read this three fictious examples of 'bad' science.

Scientist A is a Muslim and one of his basic assumptions is that the existence of Allah can be proven with scientific data - so he goes and looks for evidence of the hand of Allah in astronomy, genetics, biology, etc.

Scientist B is a Socialist and she believes that if she looks hard enough at the data, she'll find some evidence to prove that Socialist governments are superior to capitalist ones.

Scientist C is a racist and he believes that white people are naturally superior to the colored races, so he ignores any scientific data from India or Africa, when doing his research.

 

See the common problem?

A, B and C are being unprofessional.  They are bringing their own, personal assumptions, biases and beliefs into their scientific work.  This is something that scientists shouldn't do.  They need to remain objective and do their work with as few assumptions as possible.  They need to leave their religious, political and racial views out of their work - just as judges, cops and doctors do.

 

So, the bottom line is this, Aaron.

The basic assumption (precriteria), that science cannot detect or prove God's existence has to stand.  Why?

Because a person's religious beliefs are just that - private and personal.  A scientist cannot allow his or her religious beliefs to affect their judgement.  Nor can they incorporate their beliefs into their work.  Doing either of these things is unprofessional.

 

However, a scientist can make a religious claim if they want to, provided they make it clear that they are doing so a private individual, not as a scientist.  Sadly, this is where some scientists allow their personal religious beliefs to affect their judgement.  Too often they claim that natural science can investigate super-natural things, when they know full well that it cannot.  This is a severe lapse of judgement on their part and a very clear lack of professional detachment.

 

 

 

What do you suggest? If we say “Currently Unknown” does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition.  We cannot use the scientific method on a different category, So I ask again what do you suggest my friend to detect God? Cant say science because the scientific method, it necessarily defines God out of existence. If this is the case then how would you found out if God exists what kind of things would you look for to determine supernatural involvement? If it cannot detect supernatural by default how would you look for the supernatural anyway? Something that doesn’t comport with the scientific inquiry. This is why I struggle with this I need your help because it reminds me of when I was riding on a merry go round when I was a kid.

 

Mind only create Mind

 

If I am intellectually dishonest with myself then YES a mother does have participation in the Painstakingly creation process of the babies mind. She sticks her hand in her ******* and skillfully weaves the contours of the physical brain and then casts a level 13 spell from pathfinder 3.5 and creates the thoughts of the babies mind. Legit! All the doctor has to do is pull the baby out and Viola!

 

If I AM intellectually honest then the word farfetched is a vast understatement to describe the scenario above, so it seems then we are somewhat on the same page. Page 11… My lack of clarification of Mind only create mind has by few here conjured up many definitions and for that I apologize.

I agree humans can’t directly create the mind, of course not lol, they cant even create a bird, a dog or even a leaf, let alone a complex mind. Science, to my understanding I could be wrong, believes that non intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening?

 

When I say Mind creating Mind, my definition of that phrase is different than what you would proposed, so it was a simple misunderstanding. I agree a human cannot have a direct influence of a mind as I have given a joke scenario above to show that however, perhaps the word “CREATE” is the wrong word to express what I meant, I was in a rush was trying to summarize all of what I mean in a simply way but the message got distorted again I apologize. Maybe using some of your examples I could explain my perspective…..A Human can produce something that has a mind because it also has a mind, A human cannot get pregnant and give birth to a box, a boat, or phoenix down, same with animals they cannot give birth to a alienware computer, a glock, or a gigapet. They can only produce something that has Mind just like it does. Even in the case of evolution being true, ape creating/ or evolving to human, Mind came from mind. This is what I meant when I said Mind can only create Mind.

Ok Aaron.  Thanks for that.  You've given me a clearer understanding of how you were using the word CREATE.

 

This wasn’t pre assumed that God is the creator there are well arguments to support it, not just God because I want it to be but with deductive reasoings. arguments too many to list, but I will say this, working with an antonymic pair( meaning a scenario that has 2 and only 2 options only) When one of the options is invalidated the other one is validated. By process of elimination it leads to the other choice. Either God exists or he doesn’t exist. Is there a third option?

.

Yes, there is.

"The answer is currently unknown."

But, you can even be more precise than this. 

 

You could say that as far as natural science goes, the answer is currently unknown and always will be - because science can only investigate natural things, not super-natural things, like God.  However, certain super-natural claims can be made, using natural science to support them.  Each claim must be evaluated purely on it's scientific merit.  If it doesn't hold up, then the super-natural claim it was supporting also fails.

That help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.