Question to Christians re humility

[genkaus]

It is arrogance in the sense of epistemology. Atheists have faith in a doctrine called Empiricism--that whatever they don't perceive directly with their senses does not exist, end of discussion.

Clearly, you have no knowledge of epistemology or empiricism.

I confess it's not easy to believe with secondhand evidence and reason, but how else are we to know about the non-natural realm?

If there is second-hand evidence, there would be first-hand evidence before that. That's how.

Atheists claim they know God doesn't exist.

Not all. I'm one of the few.

Agnostics claim they know they can't know whether God exists. Christians believe that, if there, God would reach through the barrier of nature to contact them. Part of this is accomplished through the Bible, part through the Holy Spirit, and additionally via introspection (by which the created can learn about the image of their creator).

You are missing a few thousand other belief systems. Add them to the list.

You demand physical proof of a non-physical being.

Nope. You can give non-physical proof if you like. Is there any?

If your starting point is rooted in naturalism, there's nothing I can do to convince you.

You can always try and show that having a starting point in naturalism is wrong.

Atheists like to remain closed until pried open. Christians remain open until slammed shut.

You mean their mouths? I agree.

Don't wait to be convinced by the most undeniable evidence in the universe. Open your eyes and... let yourself be vulnerable. My God is the God of the heart, and he can't meet you until you meet Him.

You see your problem? Heart is an organ that pumps blood. Its the brain that's supposed to think and know. You've stopped thinking and knowing because you are trying to do it through your heart.

[Undeceived]

The correct answer is "we don't know". You've abandoned science from this point forward (because it was only useful to you as a preamble), you've abandoned evidence (because it is only useful to you as pretext)

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default. I’ll repeat what I told Darkstar: if you wish to make naturalism the default, give an argument why. There is no “natural unless proven supernatural” court of law. If you think there is, you must explain yourself. Don’t assume your version of epistemology (source of knowledge) is true. In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to supernatural conclusions. That’s scientific methodology. Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers. In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects. I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case. Yet you accept theories on these subjects. If science leads us to a creator/catalyst (no matter how personal), why are you afraid of that? A causeless entity should pack no more emotional punch than any other theory, like quantum fluctuations. He/It is only the Black Hole that stars revolve around (metaphorically speaking). We can’t see Him/It, but we know He/It has to be there, and we know He/It has to have certain attributes in that place.

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_bas..._1206.html

According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events (such as the radioactive decay of an
atom, for example, or the precise way in which the QM probability wave function collapses)...

The observed ‘uncaused’ events in quantum mechanics are examples of breakdowns of existing energy. Where did that energy originate? In the case of radioactivity, the atom releases stored energy because it does not have enough of its own energy to contain it.
There are unobserved events in theoretical quantum mechanics also. These involve positive and negative energy. The theory is that energy in the universe always has a net value of zero. For some reason it may randomly split into positive and negative energy. Here's the problem: The theory assumes negative energy has an essence, that it is not just a measurement in the absence of positive energy. There is no direct, observable evidence of negative energy—there are only affects, like the wind. This is the type of reasoning Rhythm condemned me for. It substitutes reasoning in the places observation doesn’t reach. How do we know there is such a thing as negative energy? Beyond this issue, quantum fluctuation theory lacks an explanation for where the ‘vacuum’ for fluctuations comes from. Quantum field theory is the more defined and version of this, and it requires fields with which to work in, containing all the universe’s present laws and constants. If you believe the universe is a closed system with a beginning, quantum theory is not a suitable answer. If you believe in an open, eternal system, you must identify the force that is changeless so as to exist eternally, and how it can possibly remain so in spite of our laws conflicting with its existence. Then you are left pondering how the vastly improbable Big Bang happened in only one possible universe.
In short, the observed part of quantum mechanics explains nothing about the origin of energy. And the unobserved part (on which you base your theory of the origin of the universe) is as much rooted in faith as God is.

[The Grand Nudger]

The correct answer is "we don't know". You've abandoned science from this point forward (because it was only useful to you as a preamble), you've abandoned evidence (because it is only useful to you as pretext)

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default. I’ll repeat what I told Darkstar: if you wish to make naturalism the default, give an argument why. There is no “natural unless proven supernatural” court of law. If you think there is, you must explain yourself. Don’t assume your version of epistemology (source of knowledge) is true. In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to supernatural conclusions. That’s science. Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers. In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects. I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case. Yet you accept theories on these subjects. If science leads us to God, why are you afraid of that? A causeless entity should pack no more emotional punch than any other theory, like quantum fluctuations. He/It is only the Black Hole that stars revolve around (metaphorically speaking). We can’t see Him/It, but we know He/It has to be there, and we know He/It has to have certain attributes in that place.

In what way is your answer the best at had? How does it surpass my "We don't know"? Correct, finding, not manufacturing answers. I don't revert to a naturalistic default, we don't know. What about "we don't know" can't you handle? No amount of arguing against naturalism will make your ghost story more plausible or believable to me, you probably know this (and probably understand why). You -can- "see thermodynamics", btw, jesus fucking christ.....

Tell me more about what I'm afraid of, jackass. No, wait, don't, just support your fucking claims...at your leisure.

[Darkstar]

---

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default. I’ll repeat what I told Darkstar: if you wish to make naturalism the default, give an argument why.

---

Because it is. We have never observed something supernatural, and there is good reason to doubt such a thing could even exist.

There is no “natural unless proven supernatural” court of law. If you think there is, you must explain yourself. Don’t assume your version of epistemology (source of knowledge) is true.

Here is my explanation: nothing supernatural has ever been observed. Ever. People used to think lightning was Zeus, or that the sun was a god. We have time and time again proven that what was once thought supernatural was in fact natural. It would be unreasonable to have the assumption that something is supernatural as the default position.

In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to the supernatural.

Apparently it wasn't a very good one...

That’s science. Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers.

There is no such thing as 'outside the scientific realm' unless we are referring to personal tastes and whims. We haven't given up the search, you have. You are content with goddidit, while scientists search for the real answer.

---

In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects.

---

So...your point is... We have never observed the 'effects' of god; we have always found the real answer. How is observing the effects of gravity not the same as observing gravity? By the way, evolution has been observed firsthand in bacteria, and black holes are points of uber-dense matter causeing incredible gravity, by which they are observed, so observations of black holes and of gravity are basically the same.

I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case.

Thermodynamics works, religion doesn't.

Yet you accept theories on these subjects because they agree with your worldview.

No, our worldview agrees with theories on these subject because they work.

If science leads us to God, why are you afraid of that?

Well, god is a horrible monster, so.... In all seriousness, the fact is, science doesn't lead to god.

A causeless entity should pack no more punch than any other theory, like quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations occur at the molecular level. You really think that an all powerful being with infinite knowledge of the universe could just appear when disordered atoms cannot?

He/It is only the Black Hole that stars revolve around (metaphorically speaking). We can’t see Him/It, but we know He/It has to be there, and we know He/It has to have certain attributes in that place.

Uh...did you miss the part about scientists finding the real reasons for natural phenomena? What about rainbows? Did we need god to figure out how they really appeared?

---

The observed ‘uncaused’ events in quantum mechanics are examples of breakdowns of existing energy. Where did that energy come from? In the case of radioactivity, the atom is releasing stored energy because the unit does not have enough of its own energy to contain it.
There are unobserved events in theoretical quantum mechanics also. These involve positive and negative energy. The theory assumes negative energy has an essence and is not just a measurement in the absence of positive energy. There is no direct, observable evidence of negative energy—there are only affects, like the wind. This is the type of reasoning Rhythm condemned me for. It substitutes reasoning in the places observation doesn’t reach. Beyond a lack of evidence for negative energy-as-a-counter-to-positive energy, quantum fluctuation theory lacks an explanation for where the ‘vacuum’ for fluctuations to happen comes from. Quantum field theory is the more defined and version of this, and it requires fields with which to work in, containing all the universe’s present laws and constants. If you believe the universe is a closed system with a beginning, you need another answer. If you believe in an open, eternal system, you must identify the force that is changeless so as to exist eternally, and how it can possibly remain so in spite of our laws conflicting with its existence.
In short, the observed part of quantum mechanics explains nothing about the origin of energy. And the unobserved part (on which you base your theory of the origin of the universe) is as much rooted in faith as God is.

---

You keep saying 'well where did that energy come from' and keep insisting not only that an eternal being must exist, but that an uncaused uber-being is less complicated than uncaused random atoms, which have not even been proven to be uncaused. Why exactly do you say that if the universe is an open system that there must be a god? Just because science doesn't know yet doesn't mean it won't ever. Just keep shoving your god farther and farther into those shrinking gaps...

[Something completely different]

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default.

actualy a scientist will always clearly state what has not jet been explained.
for example: why the conventional laws of physics collapse in a black hole

In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to supernatural conclusions.

Science: observing a subject of study and drawing conclusions, out of wich one can institute a theory if the observed conditions always produce the same result.

Did you ever hear of the disaster of Brescia? That`s a place in Italy wich was part of the vaticans and later the vaticans ally venece souvereignty in the 18th century. In that time Benjamin Franklin discovered that lighting was the result of cold and hot air releasing electricity when meeting.
The Vatican uterly rejected that, because to it, lighting was, is and should always be a act of god.
Now Italy in the 18th century was a rather unsafe place. Habsburg Austria, Imperial Spain and the French Kingdom where constantly fighting over infuence and colonies in Italy whilest the small italian nations such as the republic of Venece, Genua, Savoy where fighting for their souvereignty, as a result of that a lot of weapons and gunpowder where stored in churches in every italian towns church, eaven in the vatican state.
And in 1769 lightning struck the church of the cities bastion - detonating 90000 kilograms of gunpowder and killing 3000 people.
As a result of that the vatican slowly and quietly accepted, that lighting wasn`t from god.
peronaly I think it is one of the best examples to show why simply saying "the unknown is god" will get you killed.

That’s scientific methodology.

My first word association

Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers.

sience leading outside of "scientific releams" wtf are you talking about?

In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects. I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case. Yet you accept theories on these subjects.

because these theories reproduce the same results and perfectly explain their field without magic underwear.

If science leads us to a creator/catalyst (no matter how personal), why are you afraid of that?

wich it doesn`t. and out of wich part of your anatomy did you pull the "you are afraid" part? knowing science and being atheist means to me an absence of fear of the things you would call supernatural or unknown, fear is then rplaced with the rather pleasant feeling of knowing.
it also leads to substancialy less fear of the punishments faiths threaten to those who dont believe their fairytales.

[Darkstar]

and out of wich part of your anatomy did you pull the "you are afraid" part? knowing science and being atheist means to me an absence of fear of the things you would call supernatural or unknown, fear is then rplaced with the rather pleasant feeling of knowing.
it also leads to substancialy less fear of the punishments faiths threaten to those who dont believe their fairytales.

You have a good point. If anything, people are said to fear the unknown. Apparently (well, its been apparent for some time) theists are able to alleviate that fear of the unknown by accepting made up answers, just so they can say they 'know'. They often try to make us look less credible because we admit we don't know, and yet they don't really know either.

---

---

[pocaracas]

Undeceived... Undeceived... you have been deceived by your fear of the unknown.
You have been deceived into thinking there's a god that created this universe. Science just says "I don't know".... but your deception claims to know it.... well, it's a nice and comforting hypothesis, but it hasn't managed to pull through any kind of scrutiny.

After creating this universe, your deception goes further and claims that this god thing is also the creator of life on this planet. Science is still struggling with the mechanism of converting amino-acids into self-replicating entities (proto-DNA)... but your deception already claims to know it....

Then this deception claims that this god gathered a few people of the world under it's protection and gave it some land and told them to kill anyone in their way. History shows that most of mankind's tribal past was just like that: Claim land from neighbors that become enemies that have to be killed in order to keep that land. God just seems to be an excuse for it.

Then this deception even goes further and claims that this god managed to generate it's son inside a human woman. Said son would then have performed a few magic tricks to convince the ignorant low-life peoples of some desert land that he was the son of that god that gave them the land. "Bow down to me and him and you will go to him.... after you die.... " how convenient!
Something nice did come out of the message: be good to other people; love thy neighbor, etc, etc.... a rather strange change of heart from a guy who created the whole Universe and is deceptively claimed to have a plan to it all.

And then..... nothing! Not another word from the being that created all of this... Must have gone to attend to other civilizations in other planets...




In parallel, you have a bunch of other deceived people with claims of gods different from yours. Have they been really deceived? How do you think they view your "un-deception"? They must think you have been deceived.... as do all atheists of all theists.


A little about quantum theory: When you make a summation of lots of quantum effects (and lots here is of the order of Avogadro's number), somehow newtonian mechanics appears, F=ma, Ec=1/2mv^2, and all their friends. This is why quantum mechanics works. And it's why it's not just a theory... it's a mechanism.

God is a hypothesis. One that has failed to produce results over and over again. Apparently, it can only produce psychological results.... and we know how reliable those are!!
http://www.newscientist.com/special/tactile-illusions