Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

By saying the singular is everything religious is off track. You keep trying to expand my statements into something different and this does the opposite of helping rational thought. ie respectfully, you need Address the point precisely. Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

I am not deliberately expanding your statements into something different. I am exploring their meaning. I am sincerely trying to understand you. This exploring of arguments and testing their consistency is to be expected in normal debate. They may be precise and evident to you, they are not to me. Please do not degrade yourself to simple ad hominem responding. You might ask me what I mean with my assertions and explorations of yours instead of trying to derail every attempt of me to clarify statements made. Do not interpret disagreement as offense by default. Now, what on earth do you mean with "By saying the singular is everything religious is off track."? Are you sure even that the grammar is right? It does not register over here. Please elaborate.

When you explore you always ridicule as well. This isn't conducive to constructive debate. You reap what you sow. Derisive slurs attract similar in response. I always try to treat serious points seriously.
I just explained above: By applying the idea stated that faith is an exception to the scientific rule to everything religious isn't logical. Only faith needs to be an exception.

The idea that faith is an exception is not logical without argumentation. Stating that faith does not contain all religious is illogical. Is there religious belief that is not faith? This is a very sloppy answer please reply with clear answers that show you indeed are treating this seriously.

You're (not singularly) obsessed with the conclusive proof of God's existence. This is folly as I've stated very many times here since January

Well, I haven't been around here for a while. If god is an obsession of anyone it is primarily the religious people, I should think. I have no special interests in a particular god (hindu, christian, nordic, egyptian or whatever). What interests me is the religious and the way they draw their religious conclusions. You offer an especially interesting example since you deny that belief should have some probability grounded in reality. Anyway that is what it looks like to me. And I wanna explore if this is so. If you need no scientific proof then what IS the basis to choose your christian god? If the only way you can address such a simple question is with hostility than you leave little room for me to label it not as closed-mindedness. Show me you're not and please answer the given questions or at least make clear why they cannot be answered or need not to be answered. This is debate and debate should be most enjoyable when opinions differ.

Strangely the question of proof of God's existence is the obsession of most non believers here. (You changed my words again in refutation.. I said interested in proof of God and you changed it to interest in god).

I did NOT change your words, I'm responding in my own words to your assertion that proof of god's existence is the obsession of many non-believers. Implicit in your phrasing is the claim to know what motivates the non-believer. In other words you claim you can look inside the heads of non-believers and probe their intentions, you are mindreading. As a non-believer I can only speak for myself but I personally do not share your conclusion that focus on the god issue in debate between non-believer and believer necessarily means that the non-believer is obsessed with the subject of god's existence. In my case the issue of god's existence itself is not what interests me most but it is the question why the believer beliefs what he beliefs. This would give the same impression in debate, especially on atheist forums where the central difference between believer and non-believer is the issue about god's existence. Your conclusion about obsession by non-believers is a hasty generalization based on a unjust claim to know the intentions of other people. And that is the reason that in my response to your assertion I choose my words differently, nothing else.

I'd challenge you to produce one Christian that would be able to conclusively prove God's existence. You're singling me out for something universally accepted and doctrinal.
The basis for choosing to have faith in God is rationalisation.

The fact that we are in this bilateral conversation singles you out. I can't ask you to tell me what precisely motivates other people to belief. If you want conversation in which you don't want questions from me about your personal opinion, say so and I'll move on to discussion elsewhere. For, as I have said earlier, what interests me most is why people believe not what they think why other people belief. Also, at last it becomes clear in this statement of yours that a reason for you to belief is that it is accepted doctrine. This in essence is an argumentum ad populam (appeal to the masses).

'probability grounded in reality' - what does that mean? The provable evidence of God's existence is everything in this multi/universe. It's also not provable. So is that probable? Are you misunderstanding my statement? Probable to me implies 'balance of proof in favour'. Would you agree?

So you say our universe and everything in it is not provable. It certainly is provable within the highest standard of provability: science. To say that it is not provable means you use another standard of provability, please explain which standard you are using.

To take us back to the beginning: The hard fact is that the concept exists which denies empirical proof. I'm afraid that's just got to be a thorn in science's ass, and it's going to have to live with it, unless people with power wipe it from history.

You will have to explain this in further detail because I see no hard fact without science, without an alternative method of justification, only with personal beliefs. The hard fact to me is it is logically impossible to build a unified reality from ungrounded belief statements. It is illogical, it makes no sense whatsoever. Earlier you seemed to suggest a difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth. But that is not a clear distinction. Science makes extensive use of logic. And even the choice of logic is a choice. There is modal logic, predicate logic, quantum logic even. Which one are you gonna choose and why. It all seems a very fuzzy selection process to me always leading you to the christian god. Well, I must say I am almost done waiting for a real meaningfull reply that really
adressess the questions I have formulated now over and over. Amaze me.

Well you've touched yourself on the frailty on belief in everything. Further than I would push it but then this seems to be your stance. In a way the existence of God is not the question. Faith in the existence of God is.
Scientific philosophy gets it arse about face wanting the unknowable answer. Scientific philosophy, I can conclude, will never have that answer, so will be infinitely frustrated. The concept 100% renders it impotent.
There's nothing 'fuzzy' about the process. Faith is necessarily without conclusive proof, and you seem to be demanding conclusive proof of it. Is that right?

No I'm demanding no conclusive proof. I think conclusive proofs about what is the nature of our reality do not exist. Humans (at least for now) have no special access to absolute truth. Science has no conclusive proofs about ultimate truth of our reality. Science only produces tentative truths in a proces of assessing probabilities from empirical results or in a deductive manner from a priori accepted axioma (mathematics). I'm happy with it that people belief without conclusive proof but I'm sceptical about the idea that the choice of a SPECIFIC belief, such as a monotheistic belief, out of the vast array of all possible beliefs (such as non-theistic or polytheistic beliefs) needs no other justification than the choice itself. This is a what Dennett would identify as a skyhook, from all possibilities a particular possibility is claimed out of nowhere. This is illogical and certainly is NOT rationalisation, which you claim it to be.