Dualism

[g-mark]

"reaosn to believe that there is ANYHTING NON-phyiscal."

Is god physical EvF?

Also prove to me that the Universe is 87 odd % dark matter.
You know it is there, but you cannot prove it.

Why are most politicaians and people of real power religious, spiritual or they believing in something greater?
I was just wondering whether you dismiss a god because of the church, actions of the church, human religions beliefs, lack of evidence or some other reason that goes against who you are. You say lack of evidence!
Why then has religion been repeatedly recorded throughout history as having some real physical objective essence to it?
Why is it so predominent in the world today? If it has no truth to it what so ever, why do so many
people believe in something grater? Are they all illogiccal and irrational beings. I think not. Some of the greatest people, if not the greatest people in human history were religious or believed in something greater than themselves.

I offer you this as evidence of something greater.

[Purple Rabbit]

@ PR: mine is the NIV God . Belief has to be a matter of faith so you are at liberty to choose your deity/ ridiculous notion. The reasoning then continues into the resultant benefits of your chosen deity.

My single point here is that there cannot be conclusive proof. This is integral the Christianity and most religiousbelief. Making the condition that there has to be evidence is entirely illogical.

From the rational viewpoint it is not illogical to demand evidence for strong claims. In fact that is what logic is about, providing evidence. Apparently from your religious viewpoint it is illogical to demand evidence. Hey, what else is new? You say that you accept claims without evidence and I totally agree that your blind faith is a religious principle. In fact you're implying that the nature of religion is illogical and again I fully agree. But if you wanna enter logical debate, evidence is the thing that is required. To quote Hitchens on this: "That what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

[Edwardo Piet]

"reaosn to believe that there is ANYHTING NON-phyiscal."

Is god physical EvF?

How should I know? I know of no evidence of his existence at all. He is generally thought of as non-physical it seems...but that is irrelevant to my point that is that I don't know of any real reason to believe in anything non-physical. Doesn't matter if God is generally defined as non-physical or not, if there's no evidence that he or anything else non-physical actually exists...why believe?

Also prove to me that the Universe is 87 odd % dark matter.

Why would I need to do that? I don't believe ever making any such claim...? I know nothing about it.

All I know on the matter is that i heard on QI that "Most of the universe is unaccounted for"

I'm not the best one to ask on that matter exactly!!

You know it is there,

No I don't.

but you cannot prove it.

correct. As I said - I know nothing of the matter really.

Why are most politicaians and people of real power religious, spiritual or they believing in something greater?

I don't know. You can use religion to abuse your power...but most people are religious anyway! And America is a very religious country (for example)...and America has a lot of power...I dunno...

I was just wondering whether you dismiss a god because of the church,

actions of the church,

Not when it comes to dismissing his actual existence, no. That wouldn't make sense.

human religions beliefs,

No, see above.

lack of evidence

That's why I don't believe in God, yes. Lack of evidence.

or some other reason that goes against who you are.

No, it's got nothing to do with 'who I am', it's a matter of fact...I find it difficult to believe in something when I just don't because I am not remotely convinced that such a thing actually exists, because I know no evidence whatsoever! Especially for a complex deity such as God.

You say lack of evidence!

I do. That's why I don't believe in God. No evidence.

Why then has religion been repeatedly recorded throughout history as having some real physical objective essence to it?

There's no actual evidence...so whether people claim throughout history or not for there to be objectivity in religion...there's no actual evidence of God's existence...so, pfft. What exactly do you mean actual recorded physical objective essence? Because there's no actual evidence! Or if there is...please show me!! Ha.

If it has no truth to it what so ever, why do so many
people believe in something grater?

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. That's not evidence of the truth of it at all. If everyone on the planet were convinced the FSM exists...that in itself is not evidence...they'd just be brainwashed! Or something to that effect

Are they all illogiccal and irrational beings. I think not. Some of the greatest people, if not the greatest people in human history were religious or believed in something greater than themselves.

It's not evidence. And you don't have to be an 'illogical and irrational human being' to have an illogical and irrational belief. You could be a genius and still believe in God, as you say...of course. But that doesn't mean there's evidence for God...if there actually is....where??

I offer you this as evidence of something greater.

It's not evidence of God. It's evidence of belief in God. Show me then how any of this actually indicates that God actually exists...if you could??

[fr0d0]

To quote Hitchens on this: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Absolutely. Convenient too, but ultimately untrue for scientific assertion.

You're assuming a strong claim ie scientific claim when none is made. The scientific position is strong and clear. Philosophically/ theologically this isn't the case. Scientific philosophy requires the annihilation of nonscientific philosophy to make sense. If history couldbe re-written then that would be very helpful.

A logical debate does not require evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble. The clearer the facts the less reasoning there needs to be to reach a conclusion. In theology with it's completely unknowable conclusions complex reasoning is required.

The demanding of evidence from an assertion of a being that necessarily can have no proof remains the ultimate in logical fallacies for me. Science, it seems, will always have the bit of string to pull connected the boot which kicks it in the ass.


@ Kyu: All of those four bullet points you made were dismissed royally with the fact that evidence is everywhere and nowhere.

[Kyuuketsuki]

@ Kyu: All of those four bullet points you made were dismissed royally with the fact that evidence is everywhere and nowhere.

No Frodo they weren't ... one of the key points about evidence is it has to be compatible with the assertion being made therefore a claim that evidence everywhere is evidence for your god cannot not stand because we already have more rational/more compatible explanations for those things. In essence as someone quoting Hitchens said above ... if (paraphrased) you can easily base the claim of your god on no evidence we can as easily dismiss it for the very same reasons. Nevertheless, in an effort to get you to engage and (perhaps) actually concede something that might get the debate moving forward in a constructive fashion I will again point out that your dismissing them DOES NOT count as dealing with the points that have been raised against your claim. IOW you have yet to justify why your god is excepted from the normal expectation of evidence and compatible explanation ... WHY DOES YOUR GOD GET TO ACT ON THIS UNIVERSE AND NOT LEAVE EVIDENCE OF SUCH ACTIONS WHEN NOTHING ELSE CAN DO LIKEWISE?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

@ fr0d0

When it is not a strong claim about the physical universe that your god created it, then please tell me what in your opinion does constitute a strong claim. I claim that it is indistinguishable from the claim that a malevolent purple rabbit in the 26th dimension accidentally created the universe. Making the claim without evidence is illogic, not the demanding of evidence for wild claims. Your statement "There is evidence for God, it just can't be provable" is in fact a fine example of illogic.

BTW: I take it you mean "...it just can't be proven" instead of "it just can't be provable". In oder to claim provability or non-provability you technically need proof.

Do you mean or include theology when you speak about non-scientific philosophy? Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. By asserting that god can have no proof you in one stroke contradict theologian claims and affirm the illogic of your conclusion. You in other words have quite effectively burst your little bubble.

But that aside you are juggling with the meaning of words. Generally in debate the word 'proof' refers to a sound deductive logical argument (a valid argument whose premises are true) and 'evidence' refers to combinations of verifiable facts about the world supporting the premises and valid logical arguments. Because all facts about the world only can be obtained through our senses, technically facts do not constitute sound deductive logical arguments. In that sense we have no definite proof for anything. The whole of science (with exception with certain parts of mathematics) has no absolute proof and science makes no claim about it.

So juggling with the meaning of 'evidence' and 'proof' may be a nice therapy to get us through the day, it is not in these words that the diffrence between science and religion lies. The distinguishing factor of science is that it works. It has been capable of predicting unknown phenomena and results and has effectively been put to use (just visit a modern hospital) whereas the my-god-did-it claim (and fill in any god you like or dislike) has shown no explanatory power and has not been put to use in further understanding of the world we live in. And that is the real difference that ultimately counts. While only about four hundred years in place, science has outsmarted millenia of religious knowledge forging and has become the undeniable new standard. Not wanting to measure up to this benchmark is a nice try but rather irrelevant in the discussion about what is true and what is probable. This debate will go on and improve without religious claims about physical phenomena. It effectively does so for quite a time already. To join is to deliver evidence, to just claim that its stances need no proof is not getting the point what the debate is about.

[fr0d0]

Fine attempt at steering PR. Of course if you steer the point of the debate away from theology and into the scientific realm then of course your criteria apply. Strangely enough you miss the subject by some distance and waffle on about scientific proofs, evidence and scientific debate.

I make no claim. A scientist would do so, I wouldn't. God either did or did not create the multi/universe. Which side you choose has little bearing on science. It has every bearing on resultant belief systems. this is the point. So scientists like to fill their time considering ludicrous notions such as purple rabbits. There's logic for you.

Neither do I claim any professional type accuracy to the words I use. I'm just an interested observer saying what I see. Juggling with the meaning of words seems precisely the drift of your post. You know what I'm saying and strive to belittle me with pedantry. Face. Bothered?

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

There's a claim. substantiate please.

Quite on the contrary. Christianity provides direction for humanity to be fulfilled. Science merely observes. One awesome trait. Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science. Science has helped dismiss superstition and poor interpretation. Blinded by science seems an appropriate cliche.

[Purple Rabbit]

I make no claim. A scientist would do so, I wouldn't. God either did or did not create the multi/universe. Which side you choose has little bearing on science. It has every bearing on resultant belief systems. this is the point. So scientists like to fill their time considering ludicrous notions such as purple rabbits. There's logic for you.

The purple rabbit is ludicrous in common practice indeed, but no scientist is claiming it’s existence. It is only a rather simple, unscientific if you will (though in my opinion philosophy and science go hand in hand), philosophical thought experiment. Just insert ‘purple rabbit’ for your specific god and see if it makes any difference. For you have to agree that “the purple rabbit either did or did not create the universe” (can you feel the suggestion of purple rabbit power in that statement?). By suggesting a divide between ‘ludicrous philosophy’ and ‘unscientific philosphy’ (your term) without providing a clear ground for this distinction you leave me to conclude that some emotion about your particular god plays some role in it. Bottomline, if your god in our reality is indistinguishable from the purple rabbit, it is as ludicrous. This is a point of critique of religions in general. Always the god(s) of other religions are ludicrous, but no specific religion so far has been capable of providing any ground for the implicit claim that theirs isn’t. Religions by their sheer existence posit the claim that their god is different from the other gods. In practice however for the outsider it seems that any babble will suffice to constitute religion. And this notion is fed by the practical insight that the main factor in ‘choosing’ a specific religion is cultural background and upbringing.

If you indeed make no claim at all, it really becomes very fuzzy what you are spending your words on. You are not claiming that a particular god exists but you do demand that any such claim thereof is unprovable. I think that is very odd. Does the god category constitute some special class of concepts that is immune to proof? If yes, then proof it, for by saying this you are making a strong claim. If no, then your conclusion is invalid. You do not claim that your unprovable god exists but you claim that he as sure as hell is different from other unprovable gods. You set a new standard in defying the logic of reasoning.

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

“Christianity provides direction for humanity to be fulfilled.

Looks like a claim and an assumption to me. The claim that christianity (do you mean the christians or the dogmas?) contributes some sort of ‘direction’. The assumption being that humanity as a whole needs to be fulfilled. What kind of fulfillment are you thinking of? Whose need or assignment is it? Surely not mine. I prefer to not impose any of my personal life goals on others. And let’s make this SMART: what is your stop criterion? When is humanity fulfilled? It has nothing to do with some final judgement, has it? Or are you referring to the final enlighted state of the Buddha? What is this direction you speak off? Any direction is A direction don’t you think? So anyone can claim providing direction without ever providing anything. Is the christian direction better than other directions? In what way? Do you have some absolute criterion for this? Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

“Neither do I claim any professional type accuracy to the words I use. I'm just an interested observer saying what I see. Juggling with the meaning of words seems precisely the drift of your post. You know what I'm saying and strive to belittle me with pedantry. Face. Bothered?

Don’t go into this mode please. I am not attacking you personally but your arguments. I value your opinion and think you provide an interesting viewpoint. I have no judgment about who you are as a person. I happen to disagree however with some of your views. Likewise, I might be offended when you call the purple rabbit idea ludicrous, but I am not. I am not hurt when you return the accusation of juggling with the same words or pedantry even. And don't play the mind reading trick. You cannot see inside my head what my real intentions are, as I cannot see inside yours. This is open debate and the fact that I am putting effort in it shows my interest in your stance. And I do acknowledge that it is often hard to choose the right words. My intention is not to trap you in unprofessional use of words but to get clear what you do mean. So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Start with Genesis. The lord created the earth and after that the heavens, implicitly asserting that these are separate entities. Science shows that there is no seperation between earth and the heavens, that their history and nature is intrinsically linked and that the chronology is wrong in Genesis. Of course religions can always divert from these inconsistencies with re-interpretations and claiming non-literal meaning of some sort. But tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

Moreover, if biblical truths state no claim about this world, as suggested by you earlier, then there is not a shred of substance to it and it is irrelevant in philosophical debate on the nature of our world. You seem to have trouble with the distinction between belief as a technical model of acceptance and personal motivations of people for believe. In the technical sense belief as such does not require proof or any other form of justification for that matter. You can believe that the earth is flat, or that 5 equals 6. You are completely free to believe it. Things change however when you enter debate and confront your opponents with your personal 'truths'. You will find that although your belief that 5 equals 6 didn't require from you to substantiate, justify or proof it in any way, entering debate with it will trigger critique by your opponents and indeed justification of claims and beliefs is what debating is about. While belief as such does not require jutification in any form, debate requires from it's participants to substantiate and to justify. Most believers I know do require some form of justification for their beliefs themselves. In general believers are not proud of blind unsubstantiated faith and all over the world believers are indeed claiming that god created the world and everything in it. Debate requires justification, debaters require justification and most believers themself require justification for their beliefs.

Science has helped dismiss superstition and poor interpretation.

But it never has been an ambition of the scientific method/program. Science has gained this authority not by missionary work but it’s open structure, based on critique not on dogma, unbothered with unclear and irrelevant distinctions between superstition and religion, has been a basis for concrete results rather than words on paper.

[fr0d0]

Well you seem to have adopted a civilised stance which is a relief. I'm not insulted at all with any supposed attack on my beliefs. That is entirely unimportant. That you assert your opinion in the style of a sanctemonious religiot could be seen as a little irksome perhaps.

For you have to agree that “the purple rabbit either did or did not create the universe”

I absolutely agree.

By suggesting a divide between ‘ludicrous philosophy’ and ‘unscientific philosphy’ (your term) without providing a clear ground for this distinction you leave me to conclude that some emotion about your particular god plays some role in it.

So, God's existence or not being besides the point here; ludicrous and serious philosophy are all we are left with.

To me it seems that you are ignorant of religion. Other religion's gods are not ludicrous to my religion. Made up silly religions, deities etc are of course ludicrous by design. What makes the religion is more than this obsessive target. Silly examples are philosophical tricks which help us discern what's really important.

You dismiss the entire history of mankind's exploration of truth as babble. I'd like to think that you'd dismiss a critic of scientific progress using the same logic. The populist scientific world view being your cultural heritage.

I believe by faith that God exists. That's me. Only me. I don't impose this opinion on anyone. Faith is necessary because there can be no proof. Faith is integral to belief. I cannot know. So how am I supposed to make 'a claim'? This seems a new concept to you, this notion accepted and believed by ancient man forward. Stunningly you ask for proof that God doesn't require proof. I find that very amusing. And this you call logic. Or perhaps you'd like to study the Christian bible because it entirely reasons God's unprovablity. This is the common concept of the vast majority of religions in my experience. It is the nature of spiritual truth. I'm not here to explain spiritual truth to you, but to defend a subject from dismissal on the grounds of an innapropriate measuring tool. Science doesn't cut it, it's quite simple.
That "special concept" is theology. Guess what... it isn't scientific concept. It constantly astounds me how often people state a willingness to annihilate a point of view because they don't agree with it. It seems wholly destructive to me. You will not live and let live. You have to obliterate my POV in favour of your own. It's more than evangelism.

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

Yeah right. You mean you have no idea what direction and guidance is offered by Christianity. How convenient. How gob smackingly unbelievable you've lived life in ignorant bliss of these facts. But then of course you're not being genuine. I'm supposed to wait with baited breath on your cynical misinterpretations. Lets not waste each others time ok?

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Sorry, I'm not a literalist. Genesis 1 is not provably a literal account. It's many other things. Sometimes incredibly complex poetry, sometimes allegorical.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

Moreover, if biblical truths state no claim about this world, as suggested by you earlier, then there is not a shred of substance to it and it is irrelevant in philosophical debate on the nature of our world.

Ah well, no surprise there then. So because biblical truth has no impact on scientific discovery then philosophy is irrelevant. It's me who's supposed to be the one making the leaps of faith you know. So you're saying that philosophical debate follows scientific rules? How ludicrous.

You seem to have trouble with the distinction between belief as a technical model of acceptance and personal motivations of people for belief.

Your points are groundless. You need substantiation of the unsubstantiatable. Like I've said. God needs no substantiation. Moving on from the proof issue you move into reasons for that belief. This is where substantiation enters. You cannot move here though because your needle is stuck in the first groove. You are unwilling to accept the intellectual assumption in order to reap the benefits. I justify my belief through the resultant benefits. If the benefits were absent then I'd have no reason to uphold the belief. My belief would then fail.

[Purple Rabbit]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.

Yeah right. You mean you have no idea what direction and guidance is offered by Christianity. How convenient. How gob smackingly unbelievable you've lived life in ignorant bliss of these facts. But then of course you're not being genuine. I'm supposed to wait with baited breath on your cynical misinterpretations. Lets not waste each others time ok?

I see you are really getting into the substantiating mode here... Is it so hard to say even one small positive thing about the direction you and your christian friends have plotted for the entire human race? Mind your PR (no purple rabbit hides in there) my friend. I'm afraid that when you continue on this road the big chief from the sky will have to come down for some old testamential plagues to flog us happy with the plan we never asked for.

So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?

To bring you up to speed.. Dawkins speaks of empirical and non empirical evidence. The history of my discussion with Evie includes exploration of these ideas. So I use the word proof to be more exact. Empirical evidence only. It's clear from the Christian Bible that there is never proof of God. I go as far as saying that this is a signature of God. If we can prove it, then it isn't God. I stand to be corrected on this. So far it's holding true.

I cannot prove that 5 = 6. Can you? Lo and behold, it is the mark of the lord, the mathmatical god has revealed himself through the numbers! His ways are mysterious indeed. Never heard such bullshit in my life, lmao.

Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.

Sorry, I'm not a literalist. Genesis 1 is not provably a literal account. It's many other things. Sometimes incredibly complex poetry, sometimes allegorical.

Somehow expected you not to be a literalist. But what the hack do you mean that Genesis 1 (we are not going through all Genesis paragraphs on by one, are we, my rash is already beyond treatment right now) is not provably a literal account? That it is not provable, that it is not an account, that its literal meaning is not provable but true? Make up your mind, boy.

tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.

LOL

Are you getting it? Biblical truth doesn't impact on scientific discovery. That's what I think too.

You are misreading here. I am not exclusively comparing science to religion here. I didn't add the equal rights and the slavery thing for nothing.

Moreover, if biblical truths state no claim about this world, as suggested by you earlier, then there is not a shred of substance to it and it is irrelevant in philosophical debate on the nature of our world.

Ah well, no surprise there then. So because biblical truth has no impact on scientific discovery then philosophy is irrelevant. It's me who's supposed to be the one making the leaps of faith you know. So you're saying that philosophical debate follows scientific rules? How ludicrous.

Misquoting me there. Never said that philosophy is irrelevant, only irrelevant philosophy is. And relevance is being decided on in philosophical debate. I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.
And I must thank you for your wise decision to label a statement you attribute (allbeit falsely) to me as ludicrous, for as I understand your point, ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??) is the mark of the lord. The more ludicrous, the better, I reckon.

Time is up now and my bed is waiting, but there's is a lot more to settle out here. Let's have a new try at it tomorrow.