RE: How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)
May 17, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Didn't read the whole thing... sorry.... too much for work hours... 
God is a philosophical question, huh?
This is where people... believers... quit grasping reality.
If god exists, then it is a part of reality... the same reality where science operates.
Certainly, it seems our science is limited to the physics of our Universe... and the god they assume exists would maybe require new science, but would still be accessible to proper testing.
If it's real, it's a part of reality, then it's something that can be probed.
Not, as this fellow says, a philosophical construct.
A philosophical construct is not worth belief, wars, temples, or anything.... it's just mental masturbation.
Just like Russel's Teapot.
Does it matter if I can conceptualize of something, and yet can't measure it?
Should I assume that something to be real?
I'd say no.
(May 17, 2016 at 7:15 am)fruyian Wrote: >The scientific method allows you to build a model based on your assertions, and to then make predictions based on that model. If verifiable evidence is found that agrees with the prediction made by your model, this strengthens the validity of your assertion.However, if new evidence is brought forward that disagrees with the established model of understanding, then the current model must be changed - no matter how long that model had been accepted!But this nugget caught my eye (yes, I was parsing from the bottom up)
But God is a philosophical question not an empirical scientific one. God is know by philosophical proofs not science. Again trying to dig up a Higgs boson from the fossil record.
God is a philosophical question, huh?
This is where people... believers... quit grasping reality.
If god exists, then it is a part of reality... the same reality where science operates.
Certainly, it seems our science is limited to the physics of our Universe... and the god they assume exists would maybe require new science, but would still be accessible to proper testing.
If it's real, it's a part of reality, then it's something that can be probed.
Not, as this fellow says, a philosophical construct.
A philosophical construct is not worth belief, wars, temples, or anything.... it's just mental masturbation.
Just like Russel's Teapot.
Does it matter if I can conceptualize of something, and yet can't measure it?
Should I assume that something to be real?
I'd say no.
