Why all god claims fail.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Philosophy is an idea you elaborate on. It may be the starting point, but if that idea doesn't stand the testing process, it will never turn into science.

I do not disagree. We are after all talking about first principles. A scientist doesn't need to know the first principles to do his work. He only needs to do what works without knowing why it works. He can study objects without reflecting on the problem of universals and group things in categories without reflecting on the ontological status of categories. My question is this. What if he denies the first principles on which he relies to do the work? I say that because that is what is happening when people retreat into nominalism and nominalism is not very friendly to the scientific method.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

So....in other words, pomp without an answer to the question. Nice job as usual.

[FebruaryOfReason]

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.

Specifics please. When was the last time you used a theist approach to discover anything at all, or to reach any conclusion at all, that we could actually check?

You have no means of finding out anything new, do you? Maybe if the tools you are using can't do that, they aren't really worth anything. You tried to reduce all the points I made to "hammer and nail", but they involve subjects as diverse as the formation of neutron stars and the combatting of infection. If that "hammer" is only useful in just those contexts, then I pity the people who don't have it. I pity the people who are confined to floaty, abstract discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

BTW, I note you are quite happy to ponce off the back of people who work hard with this "hammer" to make discoveries that make your life even more smug and comfortable (or do you just pray when your internet connection goes down?)

When was the last time you produced anything other than a specious, clever sounding, abstract assertion in answer to any problem?

[FebruaryOfReason]

...
Get in the ring
...

This is officially THE BEST POST (IMO) that I've ever read here at AF.  Thank you.  THANK YOU.  :: worship ::

Thanx LFC. Maybe I should post more when I'm drunk!
Hugs and kisses!

[Brian37]

So all you have are word games.

So once the philosophy gets too complicated, you bail.

Not bailing at all, just cutting to the chase. Humans make up all gods, not my fault someone sold you a bill of goods. But if you really believe it, fine, get it in a lab, shouldn't be a problem if you have evidence.

[Drich]

Ah, no-way. (Say it in a Ted Theodore Logan voice)

All one has to do is simply be smart enough to understand that what is being measured as 'infinate' is the light in the room. Or rather what has been 'created' in a given plane of existence.

No one is making the claim nothing has existed nor can not exist outside of your 'room with a light switch.'
(which leaves room for anything who can reach the light switch the ability to turn it on)

Think of this world this life/your life, as the matrix. There is a 'real world' outside of this one (the area which God exists) God is the creator of the 'matrix' (which again is why everything tastes like chicken) Eternity simply refers to an existence beyond the measure of time we clock at start of or creation this matrix and the ultimate end of it. So when we say God (an infinite being) created "Everything" We are saying a being outside of the matrix/this realm created everything in this being from a specific point in our time and our 'matrix space.'

You see, all your little "can't happens" are easily pooped on when one learns to think outside the little box you've been taught to think in.

Well then, give me some evidence for that being that exists outside of time. Also give me evidence that we are in a realm/matrix and that there is existence outside of it.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you don't know how will you know if what I present is evidence or not?

[Drich]

Love it!

You start off in a philosophical discussion, when you get your teeth kicked in you retreat to a scientific approach. That is the best concession any atheist anywhere could ever offer! That's what happens when atheists loose a logic and reason discussion, they retreat to their blinders science offers them so they do not have to look anywhere science hasn't already been.

Why else drop the message of the OP and cower behind the dress of 'science.'

So then lets make your failure complete, and call your bluff.

What in the meaning of the word 'theory' suggests to you that 'science' is not gap filling with out 'God?'

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Specifics please. When was the last time you used a theist approach to discover anything at all, or to reach any conclusion at all, that we could actually check?

You have no means of finding out anything new, do you? Maybe if the tools you are using can't do that, they aren't really worth anything. You tried to reduce all the points I made to "hammer and nail", but they involve subjects as diverse as the formation of neutron stars and the combatting of infection. If that "hammer" is only useful in just those contexts, then I pity the people who don't have it. I pity the people who are confined to floaty, abstract discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

BTW, I note you are quite happy to ponce off the back of people who work hard with this "hammer" to make discoveries that make your life even more smug and comfortable (or do you just pray when your internet connection goes down?)

When was the last time you produced anything other than a specious, clever sounding, abstract assertion in answer to any problem?

I think that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Chad is trying to say.  In any case however, why are you using philosophy here, rather than science to make your point?

[FebruaryOfReason]

Specifics please. When was the last time you used a theist approach to discover anything at all, or to reach any conclusion at all, that we could actually check?

You have no means of finding out anything new, do you? Maybe if the tools you are using can't do that, they aren't really worth anything. You tried to reduce all the points I made to "hammer and nail", but they involve subjects as diverse as the formation of neutron stars and the combatting of infection. If that "hammer" is only useful in just those contexts, then I pity the people who don't have it. I pity the people who are confined to floaty, abstract discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

BTW, I note you are quite happy to ponce off the back of people who work hard with this "hammer" to make discoveries that make your life even more smug and comfortable (or do you just pray when your internet connection goes down?)

When was the last time you produced anything other than a specious, clever sounding, abstract assertion in answer to any problem?

I think that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Chad is trying to say.  In any case however, why are you using philosophy here, rather than science to make your point?

I was asking him to prove something, anything, rather than just asserting something. Why is he so reluctant to tell us something about God that we can check? Just one thing?

Like Brian says, why not just cut to the chase?

Get in the lab. Why is the lab not an appropriate intellectual tool to investigate religion?