No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

You are a self centered weasel.

Yes, I spotted this very early on. He is so impressed at his own cleverness that he can't believe nobody else sees it.

Abaddon, I'm glad you're back.

Earlier on this thread (or another recent one) you asserted with great certainty that Spinoza's reasoning for why there is a God had been decisively refuted. But when I asked you what that refutation is, you left the thread before you could tell me, or where I could find it. 

Since you have the burden of proof to support your assertion, could you do that now?

[Abaddon_ire]

Yes, I spotted this very early on. He is so impressed at his own cleverness that he can't believe nobody else sees it.

Abaddon, I'm glad you're back.

Earlier on this thread (or another recent one) you asserted with great certainty that Spinoza's reasoning for why there is a God had been decisively refuted. But when I asked you what that refutation is, you left the thread before you could tell me, or where I could find it. 

Since you have the burden of proof to support your assertion, could you do that now?

No. Because you are a total waste of everyone's time. 

I already told you. I am not engaging with you so kindly fuck right off.

[The Grand Nudger]

No such thing.  Science is a method, not a specific user.

Yeah, it's a method which depends on material observations taken within a particular framework.

Can you present at least one example of some knowledge claim or method that doesn't? That's the thing that you keep missing, here, lol.  That's the thing that imperils the metaphysical as a set.  

"Science has limits" Well, okay, technically this isn't one of them, but it appears, at least, to be one of our limits.  If -we- depend on material observations taken within a particular framework, and the metaphysical is by definition meant to be different than the physical.........

Really?  It's the tool we use to answer questions of cosmogony?  Great news.  Go ahead and tell me why science says the cosmos exists.  *holds breath*

To loosely quote Sidney Messenberger, if it didn't..you'd still be complaining.  Yes, Benny, we use science to answer questions of cosmogony.  Cosmogony is an active and productive branch of scientific research.  Were you unaware of this, or are you simply frustrated at the rate at which it answers questions, or which questions it hasn't gotten round to answering yet? 

What lead you to believe that science wasn't the proper tool for a subject that science is the most productive tool for? What, for that matter, about the sheer existence of an unanswered question do you take to be indicative or demonstrative of the metaphysical, what other tool do you think is the proper tool, and by what means do you make any such determination or inference?

[Mister Agenda]

I dare you to make less sense.

Only little Rik could do that.

I do not miss that guy. It got to the point where I would abandon a threat if he started 'participating' in it.

---

So, you’re going to go for the troll thing, then?

If going for the trolls means trolling, then I will have to disappoint you.

Are you a troll that's too stupid to know it's a troll? Like do you think you're actually making a substantial contribution and it's other people that are trolling when they ask you WTF you're going on about?

Never mind, if you are, you're too stupid to know it, and if you aren't, you're not going to stop trolling as long as you're fed.

---

Well, go ahead and give us your best argument for god, then!

God?
The best argument for a creator would be its creation, but since there's no evidence of any creation I believe we'll stay stuck in this.. er... existence.

You're committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

P1 If God, then existence.
P2 Existence.
C. Therefore, God.

P1 If I am Beyoncé, I am famous.
P2 I am famous.
C. Therefore, I am Beyoncé.

[bennyboy]

Yeah, it's a method which depends on material observations taken within a particular framework.

Can you present at least one example of some knowledge claim or method that doesn't? That's the thing that you keep missing, here, lol.  That's the thing that imperils the metaphysical as a set.  

Nobody's talking about metaphysics right now. We're talking about whether there are important questions which science is not well-suited to answer.

Yes, Benny, we use science to answer questions of cosmogony.  Cosmogony is an active and productive branch of scientific research.  Were you unaware of this, or are you simply frustrated at the rate at which it answers questions, or which questions it hasn't gotten round to answering yet? 

The science of cosmogony doesn't answer the question I asked. It's about how things unfolded once the framework was already in place.

What lead you to believe that science wasn't the proper tool for a subject that science is the most productive tool for?  What, for that matter, about the sheer existence of an unanswered question do you take to be indicative or demonstrative of the metaphysical, what other tool do you think is the proper tool, and by what means do you make any such determination or inference?

A simple understanding of the relationship between parent and child, and the fact that they cannot be conflated.

[LadyForCamus]

Sure.  You can say something like "You can't ask what caused the Big Bang, because causality is time-dependent, and the math breaks down in a singularity, which means there was no such thing as time before time.  Asking what caused it is a broken question."

Well, I think "why", and "how" are different types of questions. We may never discover all the "hows" of reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is a "why" question that needs answering.  Why is a water molecule two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? That's a malformed question. I'm not saying there's no more to be learned about reality simply because science may never have access to it.  I'm merely saying the way the question is being asked may be malformed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you present at least one example of some knowledge claim or method that doesn't? That's the thing that you keep missing, here, lol.  That's the thing that imperils the metaphysical as a set.  

Nobody's talking about metaphysics right now.  We're talking about whether there are important questions which science is not well-suited to answer.

That you defaulted to bitching about science after failing to present a single example of anything that belonged in the metaphysical or immaterial set is a matter of historical record, all one needs to do is go back a couple pages to see how this all began, Benny.

Whether or not there are questions that science isn't well suited to answer is immaterial to whether or not there is anything in the metaphysical or immaterial sets.  There may be, though it would be interesting to see how a person would know that or what those questions are, but if so that won't certify that there was a metaphysical answer or immaterial answer or that anything belonged in either of -those- sets.

Yes, Benny, we use science to answer questions of cosmogony.  Cosmogony is an active and productive branch of scientific research.  Were you unaware of this, or are you simply frustrated at the rate at which it answers questions, or which questions it hasn't gotten round to answering yet? 

The science of cosmogony doesn't answer the question I asked.  It's about how things unfolded once the framework was already in place.

Then, you misspoke?  You thought that science wasn't the proper tool for cosmogony, but in retrospect you know see that you were referring to something else?  

...idk...

...cosmogony...the branch of science that deals with the origin of the universe, especially the solar system.....

What does answer that question, then? This is what people have been asking you and other posters for some time. I think that the thread could use some elaboration there, because no amount of bitching about science or unanswered questions is going to explain, describe, or certify whatever that is.

What lead you to believe that science wasn't the proper tool for a subject that science is the most productive tool for?  What, for that matter, about the sheer existence of an unanswered question do you take to be indicative or demonstrative of the metaphysical, what other tool do you think is the proper tool, and by what means do you make any such determination or inference?

A simple understanding of the relationship between parent and child, and the fact that they cannot be conflated.

A simple understanding of the relationship between parent and child lead you to believe that science wasn't the proper tool of cosmogony?  It demonstrates or indicates to you that there is something metaphysical?  It tells you that some other thing is the proper tool?  It provides some means of determination or inference?

[bennyboy]

That you defaulted to bitching about science after failing to present a single example of anything that belonged in the metaphysical or immaterial set is a matter of historical record, all one needs to do is go back a couple pages to see how this all began, Benny.

Nobody's "bitching" about science. I don't bitch about a hammer because it can't turn a screw.

---

Whether or not there are questions that science isn't well suited to answer is immaterial to whether or not there is anything in the metaphysical or immaterial sets.  There may be, though it would be interesting to see how a person would know that or what those questions are, but if so that won't certify that there was a metaphysical answer or immaterial answer or that anything belonged in either of -those- sets.

Stop talking about my mom's socks.

[The Grand Nudger]

.........?

What can "turn the screw" then, how do you know that the hammer can't, and can you please give at least one example of a screw?

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1893547' dateline='1553218370']
Well, considering the hubris with which you condemn atheists for not being persuaded by them

Please quote to me the post in which I condemn atheists for not being persuaded. I don't believe I have done that. How could I when I am not sure about them either? 

I think you've been imagining judgements which I haven't made.

You're here, on an atheist forum, challenging atheists to reconsider their "metaphysical commitments".  Let me ask you yet another question if I may, since you're presenting your position on the question of the existence of god and other metaphysical truths as completely neutral:  Are you also registered to theist forums where you challenge the quality of their reasons for belief in the same way that you challenge our reasons for disbelief, and our judgements of their reasons?  That's what I would expect from a person who truly has no inclination on the subject yet, one way or the other, and who is looking to challenge all the information and ideas available before taking a committed stance.

It appears that some things appear obvious to people which aren't in fact true. If people could calm down a little bit with their accusations we might be able to understand each other better. 

Maybe it would help if I went back to bare-bones epistemology. This is what I believe:

~ Sense impressions in themselves have no meaning. 

~ When we get a sense impression, we interpret it in the mind. Anything of which we are aware has been interpreted already.

Sure.  No pushback from me on that one.

~ The mind has structures through which it interprets sense impressions. These can be pretty elaborate. It appears that there are innate structures (e.g. the Kantian categories) which guide our interpretations. Beyond those, there is memory, association, and any number of learned categorizations, theories, assumptions, etc. (The extent to which these structures differ among different ages and cultures is an interesting question, but not of first importance here.) Usually the interpretation happens so quickly that we're not aware of it. 

~ If we get a sense impression of something that isn't immediately familiar to us, we use our interpretive structures to think about what it is. To work out where it fits into our familiar world, we can fit that impression into known structures, and we can use logic to extrapolate about it. 

~ If we want to know more about familiar things than our interpretive structure currently gives us, we can fit that familiar thing into existing structures, and use logic to extrapolate, to propose further knowledge.  

~ Some of these propositions will be testable through further sense-experience, which is itself interpreted through our theories and structures. This is science.

~ Some of the propositions could be interpreted through theory and logic in ways which aren't testable through further sense-experience. In such cases, we just have to use logic, and the lack of empirical testing may mean we can never be sure. This is metaphysics. 

There is no mysterious third way of knowing the world, as your question seems to imply. I have never said there was anything like that.

How do you determine which propositions are and are not empirically demonstrable? Is there a separate category of "real" that is, at the same time as real as a tree, or the ocean, or my house, but possesses some mysterious distinction that renders it undetectable? As I mentioned to you many times now, logical arguments for god rely on assumptions about the observable universe.  I thought we couldn't use observable data to draw conclusions about god?