Hare Krishna

[Annik]

I am disappoint.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I am disappoint.

Honestly, me too.

How have I disappointed you?

[Annik]

I am disappoint.

Honestly, me too.

I was hoping that you would be a little more open to ideas, but you lack a basic understanding of science and the drive to find out for yourself. Instead, you hide behind sarcasm as if it actually makes you more clever. It doesn't, it just makes me disappoint.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I was hoping that you would be a little more open to ideas, but you lack a basic understanding of science and the drive to find out for yourself. Instead, you hide behind sarcasm as if it actually makes you more clever. It doesn't, it just makes me disappoint.

I really appreciate science, honestly. I'd like to learn more about science.

But that's not at all the struggle I feel like I've been having here. The point is that weak philosophy has sometimes been presented as science. People keep making these really weird arguments and insisting I'm a fool for not accepting them. That's the stuff that's tough to get past.

[Annik]

What philosophy?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Here's an argument I think is funny, for example:

( P ) Modern science, by their standard of achieving knowledge, has no evidence for God
( C ) Therefore there is no reason to think there is a God

What's missing from this argument is that there may be other ways of knowing if God exists or not. You certainly haven't proved that the modern scientific method is the only way to know anything that may be knowable. That's a claim science can't prove. I've heard respected scientists entirely agree with this point.

Science is great when it stays within the bounds of what it can talk about. When it starts making claims about things it can't talk about, like spirituality, or makes the claim that there is nothing else to talk about, that's like an intellectual foul.

[Cyberman]

Well done; you just proved that you can knock down a strawman that you made yourself!

[Annik]

Here's an argument I think is funny, for example:

( P ) Modern science, by their standard of achieving knowledge, has no evidence for God
( C ) Therefore there is no reason to think there is a God

What's missing from this argument is that there may be other ways of knowing if God exists or not. You certainly haven't proved that the modern scientific method is the only way to know anything that may be knowable. That's a claim science can't prove. I've heard respected scientists entirely agree with this point.

Science is great when it stays within the bounds of what it can talk about. When it starts making claims about things it can't talk about, like spirituality, or makes the claim that there is nothing else to talk about, that's like an intellectual foul.

What evidence do you have for a god, then?

[Darkstar]

What evidence do you have for a god, then?

That warm fuzzy feeling, maybe with some coincidence sprinkled on top and a large side dish of credulity. The only evidence anyone ever has...

[IATIA]

We're working on the premise that life is a product of dumb energy, right?

Right!

Proteinoid