(April 12, 2016 at 9:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not only are they projections of human desires, there is no way to postulate "eternity" with an infinite cognition as the starting point. You cannot claim everything has a cause then ignore the implication that your "super cause" has to have a cause itself.

"Eternity" is only plausible as an up and down cycle without a cognition. Much like a light switch goes from off to on back to off. As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".

What if you never flip the switch? Why is a continuously flipped one more plausible? Both states seem just as unimaginable to me. And yet one of them is true by necessity, it would seem... There doesn't seem to be a third option. There isn't even a second one, if you really think about it.

(April 16, 2016 at 11:28 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm)RozKek Wrote: Are you saying philosophy is more logical than science? It's the other way around, science starts out with logic and reason.

And don't mix up theory with hypothesis. Theories are well supported. Your god claims aren't. You're asking "what if" without elaborating.

No.

I am pointing out the OP started out as philosophical discussion. Once the OP-er got his teeth kick in Philosophically he moved the goalpost by changing the philosophical discussion and made it a scientific one.

All 'nature of God/Proof of God' discussions at one time where philosophical by nature either because their was no 'science' or as late as the 20th century all things in science were attributed to how Hod made things work.

Once the philosophers got tired at loosing all their philosophical arguments they tried and turned the limited viewing lens of 'science' onto God. As the Nature of God (philosophically speaking) Can not lend it self to science, people like you and the OP have created a 'no win' argument. If God can be proven by science then philosophically he can no longer be considered God, or as the OP is trying to say because 'science' can not identify God their can be no God.. Which is a false assumption as science can not account for a 1/3 of the known universe let alone what it does not know.

Hold on, are you having philsophical discussion to win them or to actually learn something and figure things out? If it's because you want to find the answer to something, then what is the problem of introducing science? Also if God can't lend itself to science, then you can't prove God, there is no evidence favoring his existence, therefore I conclude that God doesn't exist. And if God can't lend itself to science, does that mean that God isn't material? Is there any evidence for the existence of the immaterial? And how does "science can not account for 1/3 of the known universe" leave room for God? Elaborate. Our understanding and knowledge is expanding. The only reason we don't know everything about the universe is because fortunately everyone doesn't have the creationist mindset. Instead of making shit up, we find out scientifically and that is more than just assumptions and arguments.

Like the others have said, put your God in a lab then come back.

(April 15, 2016 at 4:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm)RozKek Wrote: I assume you mean science is based on philosophy, alright, but they aren't mutually exclusive are they? So what is the problem of using science in a philosophical discussion? I refer to Drich right now.

You're right that they are not mutually exclusive. What Drich and I are saying is that there is a one-way kind of dependency between science and philosophy. As it specifically relates to metaphysics, the cosmological arguments concerning the existence of God simply happen at level of inquiry above natural science. And here is why...

<rest cut away by RozKek>

Let's stop at metaphysics. First give me evidence that the metaphysical exists before we continue.

As for the rest of the post, I didn't understand. That problem might be on my behalf. If you care, you can simplify it, but I'd prioritise giving evidence for the metaphysical. Not just arguments, evidence.

(April 16, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 9:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not only are they projections of human desires, there is no way to postulate "eternity" with an infinite cognition as the starting point. You cannot claim everything has a cause then ignore the implication that your "super cause" has to have a cause itself.

"Eternity" is only plausible as an up and down cycle without a cognition. Much like a light switch goes from off to on back to off. As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".

What if you never flip the switch? Why is a continuously flipped one more plausible? Both states seem just as unimaginable to me. And yet one of them is true by necessity, it would seem... There doesn't seem to be a third option. There isn't even a second one, if you really think about it.

Instead of trying to look at it as a mental exorcise which is what laypersons do, I'd listen to the QM experts whom are pointing to our state as not being static. If nothing lasts forever then not even nothing lasts forever and even nothing will eventually lead to something, and we know at the QM level that particles pop in and out of existence, which makes the off to on to off to on to off as a cycle very scientifically plausible.

What is missed in this, is that as Krauss said in the video, and I agree, that humans stupidly ask "why" and look for a purpose when the better question is "how". What we do know is that a super cognition is not a requirement in any case.

Ok Chad, which intellectually appropriate tool will tell us what's inside the green box here:

(April 15, 2016 at 9:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 5:55 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Where is your method for answering these questions definitively, Chad? I'm not talking about a theory that sounds good. How can you show you're right? Where is your method for finding out new things?

I use the intellectual tool appropriate to the question. I pity you if all you have is a hammer and think every problem is a nail.

Nope. You're just getting pissed that many here are not fooled by your trying to drag people down your needlessly complicated Yellow Brick Road. Yes, religion is complex, just like Shakespeare and Star Wars and any daytime soap opera.

Pick any religion in the world currently believed, any one, if any one were right and true it should be quite easy to have that lab tested and falsified and independently peer reviewed. Funny how no religion in the world is willing to take that challenge. 

So what they do instead is either try to debunk science or try to co opt science to get it to point to their label. But nobody wants that neutral lab. 

Even in scientific method the principle is to go with the most likely answer that has the least baggage. Just like it would be stupid for a mechanic to default to taking the entire car apart as a starting point if the car does not start. The mechanic if ethical, will check the battery first, then the battery cable FIRST. Religion has taught you to assume first and not only assume first, but assume tones of naked assertions based on a very old book.

So yea, why should I run away from that hammer? I think that simple hammer hits the nail on the head saying humans make up gods. You need those naked assertions and elaborate ambiguity to hide behind. Don't feel bad, all religions do that.

(April 17, 2016 at 10:53 am)Stimbo Wrote: Ok Chad, which intellectually appropriate tool will tell us what's inside the green box here:

LOL! [emoji106]

(April 17, 2016 at 10:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 17, 2016 at 10:53 am)Stimbo Wrote: Ok Chad, which intellectually appropriate tool will tell us what's inside the green box here:

LOL!  [emoji106]

Religion is assuming that an invisible unicorn is in the box as a default position. Science would say get a pair of scissors cut the string and open the lid.

Exactly my point. When you even attempt to make a pragmatic effort to look for answers as opposed to sitting on your arse guessing, you're doing science.

I'm guessing it will have another box inside it, identical except 25% smaller.