Belief and Knowledge

[Cato]

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

Right, because not once in recorded history have we attributed something to God only later to learn he had nothing to with it.

[Chas]

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

Right, because not once in recorded history have we attributed something to God only later to learn he had nothing to with it.

Or to state it from another angle, whenever we have found an explanation for how things work, the answer has never been 'magic' or 'supernatural' or 'God'. Not once, not ever.

[bennyboy]

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

Maybe, but only if you're trying really hard to justify the God idea.

You don't follow a rational idea from the top down:
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if magic space monkeys exist and interact with the world."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if interdimensional space beings exist."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if we were living in the Matrix, and details at the finest level were determined with a random number generator."

You can expect anything you want when you're making stuff up and looking at it retroactively. And that makes the God idea just as valid and relevant as magic space monkeys.

[Whateverist]

I believe that I have knowledge.

But how do I know what to believe?

Reason applied to experience.

Personally I just go in for confirmation bias. But what ever works for you.

[Heywood]

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

Maybe, but only if you're trying really hard to justify the God idea.

You don't follow a rational idea from the top down:
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if magic space monkeys exist and interact with the world."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if interdimensional space beings exist."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if we were living in the Matrix, and details at the finest level were determined with a random number generator."

You can expect anything you want when you're making stuff up and looking at it retroactively. And that makes the God idea just as valid and relevant as magic space monkeys.

Maybe God is a magic space monkey. Maybe God is a interdimensional space being. Maybe God is the Architect from the Matrix. Those things are all gods in my opinion.

[Chas]

Maybe, but only if you're trying really hard to justify the God idea.

You don't follow a rational idea from the top down:
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if magic space monkeys exist and interact with the world."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if interdimensional space beings exist."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if we were living in the Matrix, and details at the finest level were determined with a random number generator."

You can expect anything you want when you're making stuff up and looking at it retroactively. And that makes the God idea just as valid and relevant as magic space monkeys.

Maybe God is a magic space monkey. Maybe God is a interdimensional space being. Maybe God is the Architect from the Matrix. Those things are all gods in my opinion.

Or maybe there is no god. We see no effects of one.

[Foxaèr]

Maybe...........

There are too many maybes in the realm of religion and hardly anything definite.

[bennyboy]

Maybe, but only if you're trying really hard to justify the God idea.

You don't follow a rational idea from the top down:
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if magic space monkeys exist and interact with the world."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if interdimensional space beings exist."
-"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if we were living in the Matrix, and details at the finest level were determined with a random number generator."

You can expect anything you want when you're making stuff up and looking at it retroactively. And that makes the God idea just as valid and relevant as magic space monkeys.

Maybe God is a magic space monkey. Maybe God is a interdimensional space being. Maybe God is the Architect from the Matrix. Those things are all gods in my opinion.

Okay. Here's one more for you, since we're on the same page:

"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if the universe has no God."

See, Christians use order as an argument that God must exist. Then, in the next breath, they use QM as evidence that something is intrinsically unpredictable about the universe, and that God must therefore exist. They use all the laws of the universe as proof of God (a watch must have a watchmaker). They then throw out this deterministic vision of Theistic perfection and praise God for our (indeterministic) free will.

Everything makes sense? Hallelujah, must be the design of God. Everything is chaos and confusion? Hallelujah, that unpredictability must be the hand of God. As far as I can tell, every piece of evidence we have is taken as evidence for God, even when it turns everything we have already learned or observed upside down.

And "THIS is exactly something we should expect to see if someone intends to bend everything we know, or ever will know, into support for something that cannot be seen or demonstrated to exist."

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Maybe God is a magic space monkey. Maybe God is a interdimensional space being. Maybe God is the Architect from the Matrix. Those things are all gods in my opinion.

Okay. Here's one more for you, since we're on the same page:

"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if the universe has no God."

See, Christians use order as an argument that God must exist. Then, in the next breath, they use QM as evidence that something is intrinsically unpredictable about the universe, and that God must therefore exist. They use all the laws of the universe as proof of God (a watch must have a watchmaker). They then throw out this deterministic vision of Theistic perfection and praise God for our (indeterministic) free will.

Everything makes sense? Hallelujah, must be the design of God. Everything is chaos and confusion? Hallelujah, that unpredictability must be the hand of God. As far as I can tell, every piece of evidence we have is taken as evidence for God, even when it turns everything we have already learned or observed upside down.

And "THIS is exactly something we should expect to see if someone intends to bend everything we know, or ever will know, into support for something that cannot be seen or demonstrated to exist."

And that, I believe, is checkmate.

[Heywood]

Maybe God is a magic space monkey. Maybe God is a interdimensional space being. Maybe God is the Architect from the Matrix. Those things are all gods in my opinion.

Okay. Here's one more for you, since we're on the same page:

"_____ is exactly something we should expect to see if the universe has no God."

See, Christians use order as an argument that God must exist. Then, in the next breath, they use QM as evidence that something is intrinsically unpredictable about the universe, and that God must therefore exist. They use all the laws of the universe as proof of God (a watch must have a watchmaker). They then throw out this deterministic vision of Theistic perfection and praise God for our (indeterministic) free will.

Everything makes sense? Hallelujah, must be the design of God. Everything is chaos and confusion? Hallelujah, that unpredictability must be the hand of God. As far as I can tell, every piece of evidence we have is taken as evidence for God, even when it turns everything we have already learned or observed upside down.

And "THIS is exactly something we should expect to see if someone intends to bend everything we know, or ever will know, into support for something that cannot be seen or demonstrated to exist."

I have never said "God must therefore exist". I have never claimed I can prove the existence of God. If you are going to argue against my position...then please argue against my position. Stop making up positions to argue against and pretending they are mine.