(May 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You guys have stopped inquiry well before the reach of reason. You stance is not "I don't know" but rather "I do not care to know." A small part of the dilemma in the induction problem. You have given up and pretend that nothing more needs to be explained.

Chad,
These assertions are absurd. Who has given up the inquiry? The person that says "I don't know" and continues to seek an answer, or the person that says "I don't know" so therefore God?

(May 8, 2013 at 12:16 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Fr0d0 Wrote:I'm not interested in existence. There is nothing to prove. My faith hinges on my belief.

Still not getting this whole "beliefs can be wrong," thing, I see.

Did that go over your head? Your belief that the chair won't collapse when you sit on it could be wrong. But you figured on the balance of probabilities that it would hold up just like it always has. That fine tuning applies to my rationalisation probably more so than the faith you put into that chair. So how do you work out that I'm not open to possibilities?

(May 8, 2013 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So how do you work out that I'm not open to possibilities?

I figured having faith negated being open to the possibility that God does not exist.

(May 8, 2013 at 12:16 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:My mind doesn't 'contort'. It finds the most rational answer, as it must.

Can you provide another situation in all of history where the answer, when it was found, actually was magic, whether divine or otherwise?

You know that's a huge fallacy right? And what science cannot ever answer should be acknowledged and not brushed under the carpet because you're afraid to address it.

---

(May 8, 2013 at 12:16 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:If all religions address the same subject, then all religious conclusions are pretty close.

And yet they all claim to be the embodiment of the one true god, and they're all different. So, regardless, some of you are still wrong.

Wrong in the fine detail perhaps. You have a problem with slight inaccuracies now?

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:14 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So how do you work out that I'm not open to possibilities?

I figured having faith negated being open to the possibility that God does not exist.

You figured wrong

(May 8, 2013 at 3:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And what science cannot ever answer should be acknowledged and not brushed under the carpet because you're afraid to address it.

Science should bow down and worship that which cannot be proven to exist? It is a good thing you are not a scientist, then.

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You figured wrong

If you realize that the possibility exists that your God does not exists, why persist in believing in that deity?

(May 8, 2013 at 3:19 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Science should bow down and worship that which cannot be proven to exist? It is a good thing you are not a scientist, then.

No, science should test everything. You don't think it should be honest about it's conclusions?

(May 8, 2013 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Did that go over your head? Your belief that the chair won't collapse when you sit on it could be wrong. But you figured on the balance of probabilities that it would hold up just like it always has. That fine tuning applies to my rationalisation probably more so than the faith you put into that chair. So how do you work out that I'm not open to possibilities?

How do I figure you're not open to possibilities? You're believing in something for which you have no evidence to the exclusion of things you do, is how. Faith isn't a pathway to truth.

Quote:You know that's a huge fallacy right? And what science cannot ever answer should be acknowledged and not brushed under the carpet because you're afraid to address it.

Who said anything about science? I'm talking about at all. Ever. You know what you were saying about the balance of probabilities earlier? Well, when every claim of magic or divine intervention, from rainbows to lightning to everything else has been proven to have a non-supernatural cause, throughout all of history, unequivocally, where else would that balance of probabilities lead us, other than to conclude that magical claims usually have mundane solutions?

Quote:Wrong in the fine detail perhaps. You have a problem with slight inaccuracies now?

I do when the source of those slight inaccuracies claims to be the inerrant and perfect, binding words of an all knowing god, yes.

(May 8, 2013 at 3:21 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No, science should test everything. You don't think it should be honest about it's conclusions?

Science has yet to find any proof of a deity's existence. That does not mean a deity exists. Science has not yet proven that leprechauns exists, but that does not mean they do exist.

Tell us how you know science will never explain any given topic.

Really, what supernatural claim can't be explained as people letting their imaginations get the better of them?

(May 8, 2013 at 3:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: How do I figure you're not open to possibilities? You're believing in something for which you have no evidence to the exclusion of things you do, is how. Faith isn't a pathway to truth.

What precisely am I excluding? And how is acknowledging truth not dealing fully with a problem where your willful blindness is?

I have plenty of evidence. Not impossible, illogical evidence that would be empirical, no. Evidence enough for your mind to make a clear and informed decision, yes.

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: when every claim of magic or divine intervention, from rainbows to lightning to everything else has been proven to have a non-supernatural cause, throughout all of history, unequivocally

When dragons will fly. That kind of thing you mean?

Do you see the fantastical requirements you set for yourself? Would you dare to call yourself a realist?

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: I do when the source of those slight inaccuracies claims to be the inerrant and perfect, binding words of an all knowing god, yes.

You're trying too hard to draw a distinction where none exists. You may well have literalist fundies sewn up there. But us people with real rationalised beliefs remain untouched.

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:27 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 3:21 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No, science should test everything. You don't think it should be honest about it's conclusions?

Science has yet to find any proof of a deity's existence. That does not mean a deity exists. Science has not yet proven that leprechauns exists, but that does not mean they do exist.

'Yet' lol. So let me get this straight... You think that an object defined as supernatural is possible to detect naturally.

Is this science of the gaps?

---

(May 8, 2013 at 3:27 am)Ryantology Wrote: Tell us how you know science will never explain any given topic.

Science of the gaps. I think I have you guys classified.