I can feel your anger

[Ace Otana]

I'm not prosposing a method, how many times do you need me to say that for it to sink in? Although it's the best method humanity has this does not grant it powers beyond its scope. Why do you think it does?

Quote me where I said it did? The scientific method works with the natural. Never stated it worked with anything like the supernatural.

Why you think scinece's roles in computer, food etc contributes towards answering the god question is up to you to rationalise.

Just stating that science is in everything. Thing is, claiming god created the universe is a scientific claim.

I agree, I shall believe whatever I want, as much as you do. Just try not to portray your position as without belief, we all make choices in choosing what we believe to be of relevance, you are no different.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am without belief. Like it or sod off.

"If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share."

Wrong quote. Try again.

I'm asking why you consider yourself capable of assessing the evidence, or why you assume the evidence must be obtainable?

If god created the universe, it should leave evidence. If god is supernatural, non-material, then there's no way to verify the claim and so it'll lack any value.

[Selliedjoup]

No it's something I believe. Based on existing evidence it's the most logical assumption, as opposed to believing science will disprove a god, or that god is proven.

Not by any form of logic with which I'm familiar.

So it's perfectly logical to disbelieve a god, but not a natural cause despite the lack of evidence for both?

That it is possible that gods exist is not in dispute between us. I accept that it is possible that our 'net' of perceptual and cognitive abilities may not be fine enough to detect everything that exists.

I also do not dispute that such imperceptible gods, if they exist, would of course be natural. That's just a function of what we mean by the word natural.

But I don't see how any logic will lead from these observations to requiring strong agnosticism.

I'm a strong agnostic based on what is known now, the history of humanity's perception of their current knoweldge and my lifespan.
I think the chances are very low that anything of relevance will be proven in my lifetime, so I'm restricted by defining my strong agnosticism within the range of my life. Outside of this, (e.g 1000 years) i may be a weak agnostic, theist or atheist, who knows, but it holds no relevance to my position now or to my position.

I would assume weak atheism is due to the dependence on science, rather than the belief that a god will be proved. I believe a god is a possibility and not an unlikely one as I have no means to determine this probability.

You assume incorrectly. My atheism is weak because while I concede the possibility of undetectable gods, I'm far from convinced that there must be a class of undetectable beings. Even if undetectable gods did exist, perhaps we are just as undetectable to them. What sort of beings do we suppose these gods to be?

Why/how would you be convinced that there is a class of undectable beings? I make no assumptions towards that which we can't perceive., apart from considering it to be a possibility I see no reason to consider that our knowledge is sufficient to be applied in any meaningful sense, it's all just relative to previous generations (progression).

If gods are to be understood as playing a critical role in creation, then I can't get past the question of what created them, and the creators of the creator's creators, and and so on. If you want to talk about logic, tell me how this fails.

I can't but the same can be applied to anything ('natural' or otherwise). Somehow there needs to be an initial point of origin. Simply positing the big bang as uncaused is illogical. Claiming matter popped into existence from literally nothing (i.e. no time, space or matter) is not acceptable. Quantum flucuations are insufficient as existence is a requirement for these to occur (unless there is proof to the contrary), therefore offering flucations as proof of existence 'beginning', makes no sense. If these are the catalyst that caused time to begin, it would make no sense that these 'spontaneously' created outside of time, to then contruibiute towards creating time (existence).

Perhaps you can logically demonstrate otherwise?

It depends, I don't use the term as a response to theists. Theists would probably view me as an atheist, although I view myself as an agnostic. Based on saying "I don't know" but the philosophy I apply is very different to those who view themselves as atheists.

I'm only asking whether you include the consideration of gods in your life. If you don't, then I say you are by definition an atheist too. As an exercise in abstract reasoning, I find I can't even get started thinking about gods because they are so poorly defined. What is their most important defining characteristic? Creation? Keeper of the after-life? Judge over what is moral? Special omni-powers?

I can't imagine you waste any time wondering if the god of the bible taken in a literal way exists, do you? I have no problem caring about the kind of gods Joseph Campbell describes running around in my own psyche. I totally exist to serve those suckers (no blasphemy intended). Mostly I'm just apathetic about whether cosmological gods exist. Does it really matter?

I don't consider the god of the bible as a literal thing, I could be wrong, but it's not something I would believe in.

Some form of creator, may not matter to you whether it exists, however this isn't really relevant to the question. It would suggest to me that there was some kind of purpose to which would otherwise be purely random.

---

And why would we care what a person with half a brain thinks of us?

The superiority complex of the atheist.

---

I must admit I'm disappointed the only response I could elicit from you is pointing out a typo.

And still, you have no argument to refute the ideas proposed by the dude in the 'wheelcheer'.

I'm more interested in those here explaining his conjecture, rather than just chairing him on.

[Cato]

Yo?!? You fucking disect every reply in order to remove context; however, you seem to be ducking me. Why?

[Selliedjoup]

I'm bold in the challenge as I and atheists don't know, yet atheists present their opinion a scientific, despite their belief that science can address the question.

It's only the ultimate as I'm right. But you're right with regard to the troll's delight.

[Cato]

I'm bold in the challenge as I and atheists don't know, yet atheists present their opinion a scientific, despite their belief that science can address the question.

It's only the ultimate as I'm right. But you're right with regard to the troll's delight.

Is it just me? Or did Selliedjoup just go totally Yoda in communication style?

[Selliedjoup]

I'm not prosposing a method, how many times do you need me to say that for it to sink in? Although it's the best method humanity has this does not grant it powers beyond its scope. Why do you think it does?

Quote me where I said it did? The scientific method works with the natural. Never stated it worked with anything like the supernatural.

Once again"If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share."

So if there is no better method than the scientific method, yet it never worked with anything like the 'supernatural' how could it assess the 'supernatural'. Note you claim natural is what science can prove, and imply anything unprovable is 'supernatural' which has the connotation of not being credible.

Why you think scinece's roles in computer, food etc contributes towards answering the god question is up to you to rationalise.

Just stating that science is in everything. Thing is, claiming god created the universe is a scientific claim.

I agree, I shall believe whatever I want, as much as you do. Just try not to portray your position as without belief, we all make choices in choosing what we believe to be of relevance, you are no different.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am without belief. Like it or sod off.

Looks like I'll have to sod off, that said I'll stay if you can prove that science can prove or disprove a god, otherwise you'll just have to stick with the belief tag.

"If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share."

Wrong quote. Try again.

I asked why must science be able to assess the existence of a god, and you responded with science being the best method.

The best method to answer the question does not equate to must being able to answer it. So why do you look to scientific evidence at all?

I'm asking why you consider yourself capable of assessing the evidence, or why you assume the evidence must be obtainable?

If god created the universe, it should leave evidence. If god is supernatural, non-material, then there's no way to verify the claim and so it'll lack any value.

What evidence are you looking for? fingerprints, dna?

---

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='314803' dateline='1343117895']
I'm bold in the challenge as I and atheists don't know, yet atheists present their opinion a scientific, despite their belief that science can address the question.

It's only the ultimate as I'm right. But you're right with regard to the troll's delight.

Is it just me? Or did Selliedjoup just go totally Yoda in communication style?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50...re=related

---

Yo?!? You fucking disect every reply in order to remove context; however, you seem to be ducking me. Why?

I'm scared.

[Whateverist]

So it's perfectly logical to disbelieve a god, but not a natural cause despite the lack of evidence for both?

Disbelief: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe. intransitive verb. : to withhold or reject belief.

I'm not aware of withholding any unconsciously held belief or of rejecting beliefs which are trying to surface in me. It isn't that belief in gods is unworthy either; if I actually had so much as a mild hunch in their favor I'd be arguing for their possibility right along side you. But I harbor not so much as a whisper of a belief in gods. Honestly. So I don't think it is right to say I "disbelieve" gods.

For a belief in gods to make its way into me, I will need more insight, more evidence or some revelation. In the meantime I find it quite logical indeed to carry on faithful to my actual beliefs and heedful of my own best lights. I certainly see no reason to make room for belief in gods based on anything I've heard so far. That may well be my own failing and loss, but I much prefer to go wrong in my own way than to tack on the beliefs of others willy nilly in the hopes of getting it right. I have more faith in myself than that.

I'm not sure what you mean when you speak of disbelieving natural causes. Beliefs concerning natural causes can be incorrect but they can also be tested. Until they fail the test, beliefs in natural causes have earned their place.

[Selliedjoup]

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='314800' dateline='1343117219']

So it's perfectly logical to disbelieve a god, but not a natural cause despite the lack of evidence for both?

Disbelief: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe. intransitive verb. : to withhold or reject belief.

I'm not aware of withholding any unconsciously held belief or of rejecting beliefs which are trying to surface in me. It isn't that belief in gods is unworthy either; if I actually had so much as a mild hunch in their favor I'd be arguing for their possibility right along side you. But I harbor not so much as a whisper of a belief in gods. Honestly. So I don't think it is right to say I "disbelieve" gods.

For a belief in gods to make its way into me, I will need more insight, more evidence or some revelation. In the meantime I find it quite logical indeed to carry on faithful to my actual beliefs and heedful of my own best lights. I certainly see no reason to make room for belief in gods based on anything I've heard so far. That may well be my own failing and loss, but I much prefer to go wrong in my own way than to tack on the beliefs of others willy nilly in the hopes of getting it right. I have more faith in myself than that.

Fair enough, I respect that.

I'm not sure what you mean when you speak of disbelieving natural causes. Beliefs concerning natural causes can be incorrect but they can also be tested. Until they fail the test, beliefs in natural causes have earned their place.

Unless we have conclusive proof of natural causes being able to determine it, I don't understand why you think it can answer this question . Laws, theories can be observed/tested etc, but what does this prove?

[Norfolk And Chance]

As has already been said, there is no way to tell the difference between an unempirical, untestable god and a non existent god.

Some of us require evidence to believe something to be true.

On another note, the reason god is unempirical and untestable is because the church has made god that way, in order that he can't be proven non existent and therefore keep hold of believers.

[Faith No More]

The superiority complex of the atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection