Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Why all god claims fail.
April 18, 2016 at 1:55 pm
(April 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And you only say that from your own opinion. Now, how do we determine whose opinion, if any, is closer to The Truth™?
Brian37 has said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it is a scientific fact that belief in god results from mistakenly inferring the existence of God from patterns found in Nature. The set of all possible patterns is a pretty large one. I don't see how he, or anyone for that matter, can exclude all possible pattern sets. If someone has definitively done in a scientific manner, then I invite Brian37 to share something specific rather than make vague appeals to evolutionary theory, etc.
I would take it to a somewhat deeper inquiry. When people study the patterns found in Nature are there in fact patterns that objectively exist independently of any particular person's observation?
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Why all god claims fail.
April 19, 2016 at 10:54 am
(April 18, 2016 at 1:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (April 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And you only say that from your own opinion. Now, how do we determine whose opinion, if any, is closer to The Truth[emoji769]?
Brian37 has said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it is a scientific fact that belief in god results from mistakenly inferring the existence of God from patterns found in Nature. The set of all possible patterns is a pretty large one. I don't see how he, or anyone for that matter, can exclude all possible pattern sets. If someone has definitively done in a scientific manner, then I invite Brian37 to share something specific rather than make vague appeals to evolutionary theory, etc.
I would take it to a somewhat deeper inquiry. When people study the patterns found in Nature are there in fact patterns that objectively exist independently of any particular person's observation?
I still waiting for you to show us what's in your God detection kit, Chad. You can't run around charging everyone with willful ignorance when we are asking you to show us your tools/methods and you refuse to do so. Tools with "S"!!! You guys get your mind out of the gutter!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Why all god claims fail.
April 19, 2016 at 10:59 am
(April 18, 2016 at 1:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (April 17, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And you only say that from your own opinion. Now, how do we determine whose opinion, if any, is closer to The Truth™?
Brian37 has said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it is a scientific fact that belief in god results from mistakenly inferring the existence of God from patterns found in Nature. The set of all possible patterns is a pretty large one. I don't see how he, or anyone for that matter, can exclude all possible pattern sets. If someone has definitively done in a scientific manner, then I invite Brian37 to share something specific rather than make vague appeals to evolutionary theory, etc.
I would take it to a somewhat deeper inquiry. When people study the patterns found in Nature are there in fact patterns that objectively exist independently of any particular person's observation?
What "vague" appeals? Evolution is fact, and we know cognitive life forms bad guess, for the same reason a cat or dog will mistake it's own reflection in the mirror for a rival. Our evolutionary flawed perceptions are a result of false input and ignorance. If you want to believe in Santa badly enough you will. If you want to believe in a god badly enough you will.
Posts: 37
Threads: 1
Joined: April 1, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: Why all god claims fail.
April 21, 2016 at 6:36 pm
FebruaryOfReason,
FebruaryOfReason Wrote:I presume the Abrahamic notion of God - forbidder of shellfish and homosexuality, murderer of his own son, drowner of humanity etc - is not at all subject to such problems of infinite regress?
If you are asking whether the proposition of God violates causality, then the answer is yes, it does. Observations we have made within our universe support the concept of causality - all things have a cause. But the very existence of the universe seems to demand violation of causality - either the universe itself was uncaused, or whatever caused it was uncaused. But if Brian37 wants to use causality to refute God, then he must accept that it also refutes the very thing that he claims to be the only plausible alternative option, and seems to refute the very existence of the universe itself.
It is interesting that the very analogy Brian37 used to support his alternative to postulating an infinite cognition as the starting point of eternity (the light switch) itself demands cognition.
FebruaryOfReason Wrote:OK, here is my statement of faith (and it is a faith).
The day that anyone postulates - and successfully tests - an idea that overcomes the flaws in our current understanding of the origin of the universe, is the day we discover a far more detailed, rigorous, empowering and useful idea than the ridiculous notion that "Some guy did it all in seven days and made a woman from a rib".
On that day you will have to generalise your idea of God by yet another order of magnitude to keep him safe from the encroachments of science. You will have to write off a few thousand more bible verses as "just metaphors, not meant to be taken literally".
Yes, I have no evidence for my belief. No, I don't feel in the slightest bit obliged to justify my belief that a made up book of old rubbish cobbled together 1,700 years ago (or 1,400 years ago for that matter) will correspond even vaguely to the awesome truths uncovered by that new idea.
Ok.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
|
