(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: ok, let's start with your first guess.
Science. How does science lead to a "logically inconsistent and incoherent" view of reality? Last I checked, science was humanity's foremost window into reality.

That’s not what I said; the atheist cannot make sense of his/her use of science. More precisely, that in a purely natural Universe science would be impossible. Science requires that trials under identical or similar conditions will yield identical or similar results. If I drop a ball in Kansas it will behave the same as if I drop it the next day in Kansas, or the same day in Tennessee, or a year later in Tennessee. The Christian can make perfect sense of this principle because in His view of reality we live in a Universe that is uniformly upheld by God in a predictable manner. The atheist on the other hand, has no justification for this principle and yet without it science is impossible.

yeah... the atheist has no justification for the fact that all electrons behave the same, all protons behave the same, all neutrons behave the same, all photons behave the same... maybe it's because an electron is an electron and there's no reason for an electron to behave differently from another electron, is there?
The behavior of electrons doesn't change with time.... because... I don't know... It's a good thing they don't, though. Why should they change?
But, in spite of my not knowing that, it does not mean there must be an entity keeping all electrons in the Universe behaving... keeping all protons in the Universe behaving, keeping all neutrons in the Universe behaving, keeping all photons in the Universe behaving, etc, etc, etc.

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Another example, science requires that our senses and memory are generally reliable, and yet we see the same problem arising. The Christian has reasons to trust his or her senses and memory because in his or her view of reality we are all the product of a rational God who has created us and desires for us to learn about Him through our senses. In a purely atheistic Universe there is no reason for a person to trust their senses or memory, all attempts to justify this position lead to vicious circularity. I am not saying atheists do not do science; I am saying atheists do science because their atheism is wrong.

Our senses and memory are generally reliable, yes... but we are aware that they fail, and have hence established the peer review process to eliminate (it's more like minimize) any bias or faulty evaluation by the scientists.

In the "atheistic Universe" we acknowledge that our senses and memory work in a given way and proceed to deal with them like that. Again, we put no assumptions on how electrons, ions, proton, neutrons, photons keep working the way they do as time goes by. But we do note that it's a good thing they do... memory and senses are just electrons and protons and neutrons working together in a particular way...

Now, how on Earth did you come across the info that there is an entity capable of controlling all those particles and keep them behaving like they do?
Where's your peer reviewed paper.... heck, that would probably have enough material for a book!!

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 18, 2013 at 6:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Have I told you I'd like to see you and Muslim Scholar have a chat?

Nope, you’ve never told me that before; but that would not make your atheism anymore valid since Muslims and Christians are both theists.

It renders your theism very similar to his.
Which leads to the question: why would your version be the most accurate representation of reality, and not his?

Since I consider all patriarchal religions to be inherently parasitical in nature, the hierarchy of which appropriating for themselves the power and the wealth they deny to their followers, I don't actually care who they were or which brand they chose to go by.

(June 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: yeah... the atheist has no justification for the fact that all electrons behave the same, all protons behave the same, all neutrons behave the same, all photons behave the same... maybe it's because an electron is an electron and there's no reason for an electron to behave differently from another electron, is there?
The behavior of electrons doesn't change with time.... because... I don't know... It's a good thing they don't, though. Why should they change?
But, in spite of my not knowing that, it does not mean there must be an entity keeping all electrons in the Universe behaving... keeping all protons in the Universe behaving, keeping all neutrons in the Universe behaving, keeping all photons in the Universe behaving, etc, etc, etc.

You do not know? Then why do you assume that the behavior of electrons observed yesterday or today will allow us to make predictions about how they will behave in the future? Keep in mind, without this principle, science is impossible.

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Our senses and memory are generally reliable, yes... but we are aware that they fail, and have hence established the peer review process to eliminate (it's more like minimize) any bias or faulty evaluation by the scientists.

How do you know they are generally reliable? I missed your demonstration of that.

Quote: In the "atheistic Universe" we acknowledge that our senses and memory work in a given way and proceed to deal with them like that. Again, we put no assumptions on how electrons, ions, proton, neutrons, photons keep working the way they do as time goes by. But we do note that it's a good thing they do... memory and senses are just electrons and protons and neutrons working together in a particular way...

Do you not have to assume your memory and senses are reliable in order to claim that you know how the memory and senses function? Wasn’t that knowledge gained through your senses and retained in your memory?

Quote: Now, how on Earth did you come across the info that there is an entity capable of controlling all those particles and keep them behaving like they do?

It’s a crucial part of my view of reality, which is Christian. The Christian God has promised to uphold His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Genesis 8), so these sorts of questions do not create problems for Christians. All electrons repel one another because that’s part of God’s uniform governing.

Quote:

It renders your theism very similar to his.
Which leads to the question: why would your version be the most accurate representation of reality, and not his?

They’re not very similar though, the concept of Allah undermines our ability to deduce logically, the concept of Yahweh establishes our ability to deduce logically. If Allah existed I’d have the same philosophical problems you’re struggling with above.

(June 24, 2013 at 6:36 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Since I consider all patriarchal religions to be inherently parasitical in nature, the hierarchy of which appropriating for themselves the power and the wealth they deny to their followers, I don't actually care who they were or which brand they chose to go by.

You’re espousing a conspiracy and yet you cannot identify the conspirators, or even tell me anything about them; that is not going to get your very far.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You do not know? Then why do you assume that the behavior of electrons observed yesterday or today will allow us to make predictions about how they will behave in the future? Keep in mind, without this principle, science is impossible.

No one -has- to, they do so anyway, though, don't they? When satellites fall out of the sky, gimme a call. Until then, this is DOA.

Quote:How do you know they are generally reliable? I missed your demonstration of that.

They may not be, and often aren't (alzheimers)...... and?

Quote:Do you not have to assume your memory and senses are reliable in order to claim that you know how the memory and senses function? Wasn’t that knowledge gained through your senses and retained in your memory?

No, "we" do not. It is enough to say that when tested, they worked in way "a", and when tested again, they worked in way "a". The next time we try that test they may work in way "b"....hey....Stat.....maybe you should do the next test, we might get a "b"

Perhaps it's all an illusion, but so then.... would be your "god". You want some help with that bullet in your foot?

Quote:It’s a crucial part of my view of reality,

your -beliefs- about reality

Quote: which is Christian.

[
which is -ignorant-

Quote: The Christian God has promised to uphold His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Genesis 8),

No such promise was made, not that it would matter if it were.

Quote:so these sorts of questions do not create problems for Christians. All electrons repel one another because that’s part of God’s uniform governing.

LOL, that is quite the problem, actually....demonstrate this "governing"? It's a testable claim, now get to work.

Yeah, I'm the staff conspiracy nut. From the Dark Age feudalism to the modern day Taliban, there's clearly no foundation for my irrational paranoia.

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 22, 2013 at 2:05 pm)Zarith Wrote: I didn't back off anything, I just don't feel the need to preface everything I believe with 'I believe'.

Well if you had said simply that you believe man invented God then I wouldn’t have challenged you because you holding that belief does not prove that man in fact invented God. You acted as if you knew man had invented God, and that I had to challenge.

So you do think I should preface everything I believe with 'I believe'? You really can't make this connection on your own? Why don't you start first? Oh look, you claimed something about God's attributes, you don't know that!! hurrr durrrr

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: yeah... the atheist has no justification for the fact that all electrons behave the same, all protons behave the same, all neutrons behave the same, all photons behave the same... maybe it's because an electron is an electron and there's no reason for an electron to behave differently from another electron, is there?
The behavior of electrons doesn't change with time.... because... I don't know... It's a good thing they don't, though. Why should they change?
But, in spite of my not knowing that, it does not mean there must be an entity keeping all electrons in the Universe behaving... keeping all protons in the Universe behaving, keeping all neutrons in the Universe behaving, keeping all photons in the Universe behaving, etc, etc, etc.

You do not know? Then why do you assume that the behavior of electrons observed yesterday or today will allow us to make predictions about how they will behave in the future? Keep in mind, without this principle, science is impossible.

Why do I assume it? Because every measurement seems to agree with it... of course, if the measuring instrument changes in the same way as the thing which is being measured, then the result will tend to be the same... and remember, your senses may be considered a measuring device.
In the end, it doesn't matter if they're all the same or not... our perception of them is what remains the same.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Our senses and memory are generally reliable, yes... but we are aware that they fail, and have hence established the peer review process to eliminate (it's more like minimize) any bias or faulty evaluation by the scientists.

How do you know they are generally reliable? I missed your demonstration of that.

Still messing up quotes, heh?

How do I know that? Wasn't it you who asserted it? I just went along with it, because it seems a reasonable assumption, taking in consideration my experience of my own senses and memory... ok, this last one is a bit dismal and I don't trust it too much... but it's amazing when it works well.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: In the "atheistic Universe" we acknowledge that our senses and memory work in a given way and proceed to deal with them like that. Again, we put no assumptions on how electrons, ions, proton, neutrons, photons keep working the way they do as time goes by. But we do note that it's a good thing they do... memory and senses are just electrons and protons and neutrons working together in a particular way...

Do you not have to assume your memory and senses are reliable in order to claim that you know how the memory and senses function? Wasn’t that knowledge gained through your senses and retained in your memory?

I didn't say that we know how memory works... we just know it does work and use that fact to our advantage.
On the other hand, we do know how memory work in a computer.... but I guess the biological counterpart works in some different way.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Now, how on Earth did you come across the info that there is an entity capable of controlling all those particles and keep them behaving like they do?

It’s a crucial part of my view of reality, which is Christian. The Christian God has promised to uphold His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Genesis 8), so these sorts of questions do not create problems for Christians.

Awwww, isn't that cute...
Stat refuses to assume anything about reality, with the exception of what his mind was infused with at a young age... no matter how erroneous it may be.
The christian god is your assumption. An assumption that has no backing whatsoever, except a very old book and other people who believe it too... and other people who have believed it and are now dead.
There are and have been people who believe/d in other gods... how does that work for those assumptions? "oh, they were the wrong assumptions, clearly... my assumptions is the one and only that has to be correct" you would say... or it would sound to me, from what you say.
This is exactly what Muslim Scholar says about his Allah... but let's leave that for the next quote...

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: All electrons repel one another because that’s part of God’s uniform governing.

Like Rhythm says, I'd like to see this tested and proved.

I was under the impression that electron repel each other because they all have what we've arbitrarily defined as negative charge... well, it wasn't so arbitrary... turns out it has to be negative, in order for mass to be positive... anyhow...
Equal electrical charges repel, because they cause the electrical field between them to curve outward. As they come closer, the field curves more.... curving a field takes energy, so it becomes increasingly "difficult" to bring equal charges close to each other.
It's not impossible, or nuclear fusion wouldn't happen... but that's for protons and neutrons, not electrons. Protons and neutrons are composed of 3 quarks each and these are governed by another force... somewhat stronger than electrical or magnetic.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:

It renders your theism very similar to his.
Which leads to the question: why would your version be the most accurate representation of reality, and not his?

They’re not very similar though, the concept of Allah undermines our ability to deduce logically, the concept of Yahweh establishes our ability to deduce logically. If Allah existed I’d have the same philosophical problems you’re struggling with above.

Allah is arabic for god.
Arabic derives, at least in part, from aramaic.
AaLaHaA (and some variations of it) is aramaic for god (accoring to these guys: http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi)

They are supposed to be the same... only the muslim god does not include your trinity thing, for it is an "evolution" of the jew god, where your Jesus is nothing more than another prophet.
In terms of power to create and control the Universe, your gods are precisely the same...
See how I can make sense of two different fiction novels which fork from an original one?

I'd really like to see you and MuslimScholar make sense of your (shared) god... and how would each justify that his notion is the correct one.
You are both creationists, so you can start with that common ground

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You do not know? Then why do you assume that the behavior of electrons observed yesterday or today will allow us to make predictions about how they will behave in the future? Keep in mind, without this principle, science is impossible.

Really? Without knowing the future, science is impossible? Seriously?

Leaving aside that, what we have is repeatability; we know electrons and protons will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today is because they have behaved this way every day for as long as we've been able to observe and measure them, and the effects of their behavior has been consistent with this since the beginning of recorded history, barring the strange stories of the religious and superstitious.

We don't know with certainty that they'll continue to act that way, but then again, nobody knows that. Nobody knows the future, even in your theology. Only god does, so when you say that you know electrons will continue to behave as they do because they were made by god, you're just wrong; for all you know, your god could have a good reason to upend all the laws of physics tomorrow. Do you know better than your god?

And hey, what about miracles? What was Jesus walking on water, if not a suspension of the physical laws of the universe that you claim to be so consistent because they were god-forged? And all the little tricks and traps of satan?

(June 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know they are generally reliable? I missed your demonstration of that.

Demonstrability and adjustment of belief with regards to experiential claims; I can demonstrate the things that I see, and that is proof of their reliability. I can show you my dog, and you'll see my dog. So will the next person I show, and the person after that, and so on. Now, there might be a few memory variations, but they will all have seen my dog, with his black and white fur. What we wouldn't see, is thirty thousand variations on what my dog looks like and does. If a person on the other side of the planet saw my dog, he would see my dog, and not a cat.

And even without my dog present, claiming that I have a dog is a mundane claim that can generally be believed on the basis of reality.

Oh, and doesn't your god trick the senses a lot anyway? Give people visions, speak to them in their heads, stuff like that? What basis does a christian have to trust their senses, when either god or satan can influence them?

Quote:
Do you not have to assume your memory and senses are reliable in order to claim that you know how the memory and senses function? Wasn’t that knowledge gained through your senses and retained in your memory?

Yes, but solipsism doesn't answer anything. Now, there could be a "true" world that is different from our senses and how we remember it, but what use is it, if we all see it differently to what it is? We could all be seeing an illusion, but that illusion does interact with us physically in ways consistent with our perception of it; why would we assume things to be otherwise, without evidence?

Uncertainty isn't proof of god, and nor is it an admission of being wrong.

Quote:It’s a crucial part of my view of reality, which is Christian. The Christian God has promised to uphold His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Genesis 8), so these sorts of questions do not create problems for Christians. All electrons repel one another because that’s part of God’s uniform governing.

Uniform unless he feels like changing it, you mean.

Besides, that bible quoting thing is circular reasoning.

Quote:
They’re not very similar though, the concept of Allah undermines our ability to deduce logically, the concept of Yahweh establishes our ability to deduce logically. If Allah existed I’d have the same philosophical problems you’re struggling with above.

So, if god broke his promise to uphold his creation in Genesis 8, would you blame him for it? What's your basis for thinking he never would break that promise? He might have a really good reason to. It might help him save lives. He knows more than you, after all.

The truth is, if your god is literally real then you live in a world in which the physical laws of the universe can be, and have been in the past, altered and changed at the whims of another, who does things based on a perspective that is so vast and beyond our own that his actions can seem nonsensical.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No one -has- to, they do so anyway, though, don't they? When satellites fall out of the sky, gimme a call. Until then, this is DOA.

Why are you allowed to make assumptions that cannot be proven? Are Christians now allowed to do this? “God exists, I cannot prove it but Rhythm said I do not need to.” The Christian can justify this principle, the atheist cannot, you’re borrowing from our view of reality in order to make yours float, oops. Science is only possible if God exists.

Quote:They may not be, and often aren't (alzheimers)...... and?

Then why do you claim you can learn about the World through your senses when you have no reason to believe your senses are reliable enough to do so? Science is only possible if God exists.

Quote:No, "we" do not. It is enough to say that when tested, they worked in way "a", and when tested again, they worked in way "a". The next time we try that test they may work in way "b"....hey....Stat.....maybe you should do the next test, we might get a "b"

Wait, how do you know they were tested? Did you see this test and remember taking it? So you’re assuming your senses and memory are reliable in order to prove your senses and memory are reliable, do all atheists have to resort to such circularity? I suspect so.

Quote: Perhaps it's all an illusion, but so then.... would be your "god". You want some help with that bullet in your foot?

The existence of my God gives us a logical reason to trust our senses, which is far superior to your desperate grasps at illogical circularities.

Quote:your -beliefs- about reality

Yup, my true beliefs about reality.

Quote: which is -ignorant-

Says the man who resorts to circular arguments.

Quote:No such promise was made, not that it would matter if it were.

Yes it was, Genesis 8, read it.

Quote:LOL, that is quite the problem, actually....demonstrate this "governing"? It's a testable claim, now get to work.

I do not need to test it because the act of empirically testing presupposes that it is true as you have so eloquently demonstrated for me. Science is only possible if God exists.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, I'm the staff conspiracy nut. From the Dark Age feudalism to the modern day Taliban, there's clearly no foundation for my irrational paranoia.

Scripture predates both examples, so yes you have no basis for your claims.

(June 24, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Zarith Wrote: So you do think I should preface everything I believe with 'I believe'? You really can't make this connection on your own? Why don't you start first? Oh look, you claimed something about God's attributes, you don't know that!! hurrr durrrr

But I do know what God’s attributes are.

(June 25, 2013 at 5:21 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why do I assume it? Because every measurement seems to agree with it... of course, if the measuring instrument changes in the same way as the thing which is being measured, then the result will tend to be the same... and remember, your senses may be considered a measuring device.
In the end, it doesn't matter if they're all the same or not... our perception of them is what remains the same.

You’re not allowed to appeal to past experiences and trials in order to justify the principle (future trials will resemble past trials under the same conditions) because that would only be valid if the principle that is in question were actually true (the past trials of the principle will resemble future trials of the principle.) You’re on the horns of a dilemma, either you have to admit you believe something is true that only Christians can justify, or you have to admit that Science is impossible.

Quote:
Still messing up quotes, heh?

I am still batting a pretty good average old boy

Quote: How do I know that? Wasn't it you who asserted it? I just went along with it, because it seems a reasonable assumption, taking in consideration my experience of my own senses and memory... ok, this last one is a bit dismal and I don't trust it too much... but it's amazing when it works well.

I asserted it because in a Christian Universe I have reasons to believe my senses are reliable, of course I doubt that you want to admit that we live in a Christian Universe, so you’ll have to provide your own reasons for holding this belief.

Quote:
I didn't say that we know how memory works... we just know it does work and use that fact to our advantage.

How do you know it works? I missed that one too.

Quote:
Awwww, isn't that cute...
Stat refuses to assume anything about reality, with the exception of what his mind was infused with at a young age... no matter how erroneous it may be.

You assume numerous things without justification; I merely assume one that would justify your assumptions.

Quote: The christian god is your assumption. An assumption that has no backing whatsoever, except a very old book and other people who believe it too... and other people who have believed it and are now dead.

No backing? Have you not been paying attention? The fact that we can do science, we can learn about our world and Universe all backs up my assumption because it appears it’d be impossible if my assumption were not true (since you cannot even postulate a justification for the preconditions of scientific inquiry in a Godless Universe).

Quote: There are and have been people who believe/d in other gods... how does that work for those assumptions? "oh, they were the wrong assumptions, clearly... my assumptions is the one and only that has to be correct" you would say... or it would sound to me, from what you say.
This is exactly what Muslim Scholar says about his Allah... but let's leave that for the next quote...

I am not aware of any other claimed direct revelation from any other monotheistic god who cannot lie and promises to uphold his creation in a uniform and predictable manner and who desires for us to learn about him and his creation. It’s beginning to look like I have quite the uniqueness proof.

(June 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Like Rhythm says, I'd like to see this tested and proved.

As you and Rhythm have helped demonstrate, the act of testing and proving presuppose this god exists because they rely upon assumptions that only make sense in this god’s Universe.

Quote: I was under the impression that electron repel each other because they all have what we've arbitrarily defined as negative charge... well, it wasn't so arbitrary... turns out it has to be negative, in order for mass to be positive... anyhow...
Equal electrical charges repel, because they cause the electrical field between them to curve outward. As they come closer, the field curves more.... curving a field takes energy, so it becomes increasingly "difficult" to bring equal charges close to each other.
It's not impossible, or nuclear fusion wouldn't happen... but that's for protons and neutrons, not electrons. Protons and neutrons are composed of 3 quarks each and these are governed by another force... somewhat stronger than electrical or magnetic.

You’re treating scientific laws as if they are normative, they are not; they are by definition descriptive. If we observed electrons suddenly behaving differently we’d have to adjust the formulation of our scientific laws to match the new behavior. What you’re saying is not unlike saying, “Well the coast has to look like that because the map says it does.” What you’re saying also in no way proves that such laws and models apply everywhere, always have, and always will- that’s an assumption that only makes sense of God exists.

Quote: Allah is arabic for god.
Arabic derives, at least in part, from aramaic.
AaLaHaA (and some variations of it) is aramaic for god (accoring to these guys: http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi)

They are supposed to be the same... only the muslim god does not include your trinity thing, for it is an "evolution" of the jew god, where your Jesus is nothing more than another prophet.
In terms of power to create and control the Universe, your gods are precisely the same...
See how I can make sense of two different fiction novels which fork from an original one?

No they’re not the same at all. The laws of logic and morality derive directly from Yahweh’s character, while Allah is not bound by logic and morality does not derive from his character. Allah has made no promise to uphold his creation uniformly (the only promise found is in Genesis and Muslims do not believe that we have accurate translations of Genesis today so they cannot appeal to this verse). Muslims would run into the same issues you’re running into.

Quote: You are both creationists, so you can start with that common ground

Yup, Muslims are not completely wrong about everything.

(June 25, 2013 at 5:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: Really? Without knowing the future, science is impossible? Seriously?

Without being able to make predictions about the future by assuming trials in the past will resemble trials in the future under the same conditions, yes it’s impossible.

Quote: Leaving aside that, what we have is repeatability; we know electrons and protons will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today is because they have behaved this way every day for as long as we've been able to observe and measure them, and the effects of their behavior has been consistent with this since the beginning of recorded history, barring the strange stories of the religious and superstitious.

Your justification is fallaciously circular, you cannot appeal to past trials of the principle and claim this proves the principle will apply in the future because that’s relying upon the very principle itself (that future trials will resemble past trials).

Quote: We don't know with certainty that they'll continue to act that way, but then again, nobody knows that. Nobody knows the future, even in your theology. Only god does, so when you say that you know electrons will continue to behave as they do because they were made by god, you're just wrong; for all you know, your god could have a good reason to upend all the laws of physics tomorrow. Do you know better than your god?

Bingo! Only God knows what He will do in the future, of course unless He has told us what He will do (Genesis 8), then of course we now know too. I know that the physical laws will be the same tomorrow as they were today.

Quote: And hey, what about miracles? What was Jesus walking on water, if not a suspension of the physical laws of the universe that you claim to be so consistent because they were god-forged? And all the little tricks and traps of satan?

Satan is not a sovereign being, so he cannot change anything. Miracles (which are not necessarly violations of natural law) are by definition incredibly rare, so I can still obtain the scientific confidence required without worrying about miracles (especially considering people in the Bible were well aware they were witnessing a miracle). I’ll give you credit though, that was a rather philosophically astute point to bring up, it’s been used before. Kudos.

Quote: Demonstrability and adjustment of belief with regards to experiential claims; I can demonstrate the things that I see, and that is proof of their reliability. I can show you my dog, and you'll see my dog. So will the next person I show, and the person after that, and so on. Now, there might be a few memory variations, but they will all have seen my dog, with his black and white fur. What we wouldn't see, is thirty thousand variations on what my dog looks like and does. If a person on the other side of the planet saw my dog, he would see my dog, and not a cat.

How do you know that I am seeing your dog? How do you know that the other person is seeing your dog? Are you not seeing us seeing your dog and hearing us telling you that we see your dog? The next day are you not remembering us doing this? You’re trying to use your senses and memory to prove your senses and memory are reliable enough to be used.

Quote: Oh, and doesn't your god trick the senses a lot anyway? Give people visions, speak to them in their heads, stuff like that? What basis does a christian have to trust their senses, when either god or satan can influence them?

I am not aware of God tricking anyone or showing them something deceitful; you’ll have to be more specific.

Quote:
Yes, but solipsism doesn't answer anything. Now, there could be a "true" world that is different from our senses and how we remember it, but what use is it, if we all see it differently to what it is? We could all be seeing an illusion, but that illusion does interact with us physically in ways consistent with our perception of it; why would we assume things to be otherwise, without evidence?

Wait, are you conceding that you cannot know anything about the World unless God exists and we therefore have reason to believe our senses accurately depict reality?

Quote:Uniform unless he feels like changing it, you mean.

Absolute uniformity is not required by science, just general uniformity.

Quote: Besides, that bible quoting thing is circular reasoning.[quote]

All reasoning is inherently circular, but it’s not a circular argument if that’s what you mean.

[quote]
So, if god broke his promise to uphold his creation in Genesis 8, would you blame him for it? What's your basis for thinking he never would break that promise? He might have a really good reason to. It might help him save lives. He knows more than you, after all.

God cannot lie, so I know He’ll never break that promise. Besides, I believe an omnipotent being can accomplish all that He desires while still keeping that promise.

Quote: The truth is, if your god is literally real then you live in a world in which the physical laws of the universe can be, and have been in the past, altered and changed at the whims of another, who does things based on a perspective that is so vast and beyond our own that his actions can seem nonsensical.

The truth is that I have reasons for believing we live in a Universe that makes science and knowledge possible, you do not have any reasons, and yet you believe science and knowledge are possible. It’s like you’re assuming I am right, but then using that assumption to try and argue I am wrong, very interesting.

Step 1 Stat, pony up a god. Then I'll deal with all the bullshit in your post. No more freebies, no more inequitable exchanges.