The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

>> Have you been talking to all atheists?

 

>That's not necessary. They all say the same things

 

How can you know if you haven't spoken with all of them?

 

>Well, it fires back because all atheists sound the same. They say the

>exact same things. It seems as if they cannot very well think for

>themselves. They always repeat what they have heard from other atheists.

 

Yes, of course we listen, accept, learn and repeat if others say something

reasonable. That's why we stick to the atheistic position

 

>> Aren't you a little prejudiced here

>> Prabhu!?!

 

>Of course I am. Is there anything wrong with being prejudiced? You are

>certainly very prejudiced towards any notion of God, so you shouldn't have

>any problems with being prejudiced, right?

 

Of course there something wrong with sticking to ones subjective meaning

about others. Like I told you I'm not prejudiced towards any notion of God.

I would love a proof. If you have one then please put forward. Why all this

talking about what I will accept as proof etc. Just give what you have, so

that we can see it.

 

>> I'm definitely open to any type of reasonable argument for the

>> existence of God. In fact, I would LOVE to hear one. Unfortunately no

>> theist has ever shown me any logical proof which I found reasonable. All

>> it takes for you is to come with such an argument. Is that too much to

>> ask?

 

>If you don't find the logical arguments of God reasonable, then obviously

>we don't have the same definition of reasonable. What's your definition of

>reasonable?

 

Well, anything that is logical or and/or based on the scientific method.

 

>> >For instance we point out that the universe seems like a huge clock work

>> >so therefore it is logical to assume that there is a clock maker behind

>> >it, but, no, no, the atheist say. The fact that the universe is like a

>> >clock work seems to us to indicate that it came about by itself without

>> >any intelligent direction. So logic is obviously wasted on you, O

>> >atheist.

>>

>> Well, why can't the universe just have existed forever with all it's

>> complexity?

 

>Well, why can't there be little pink, invisible unicorns living under my

>bed?

 

Well, I think there's a big difference between postulating that there can't

be IPU's under your bed and saying that that the universe can't be eternal.

We have good reasons to reject IPU's whereas no good reasons to reject the

eternal universe.

 

>I am talking about what's within our experience. Within our experience

>of the universe, everything is constantly undergoing the three phases of

>creation, maintainance and destruction. The only element, again as far as

>we can observe, that is not undergoing these three phases, is the self, or

>the sense of I-ness. For instance, it is not within anyone's experience of

>ever having been created or destroyed. Your only experience is of being

>conscious.

 

Well, just because we haven't that experience doesn't mean that it's

eternal. To say so would be an argument from ignorance - a logical fallacy.

Everything we know about consciousness tells us it's simply material.

 

>>We might not understand everything about the universe know,

>> but science shows that we have good reasons to think that the laws behind

>> the universe are very simple. So simple that in the future we can wear

>> them on the front of a T-shirt.

 

>So you admit that your conception of the universe, so far, is just your

>religion. It is not backed up by hard, empirical facts. Very good. You are

>making advancement.

 

It's a appeal to the most reasonable answer. I science we don't go out

claiming - like religionists always do - that we have some kind of perfect

knowledge. We are willing to correct our understading if the hard empirical

edvidence and logic tells us that we are wrong, whereas the religionists

never change their dogmas even if they are presented with such hardcore

scientific facts. So yes, we are making progress whereas you are not.

 

>> And the wacth-maker analogy is simply an

>> analogy. We can't take such analogies as certain proof of anything. Even

>> if it was a good analogy we can't even know anything about the

>> intelligence, or intelligences, behind the world. Why should we name it

>> God?

 

>Why should we name it natural selection? It seems you have just replaced

>the word God with natural selection.

 

I never said "natural selection". I said - I don't find the watchmaker

analogy convincing. Seems like you are trying to change subject here by

putting forward false alligations.

 

>> >As for empirical proof, please tell me what kind of empirical proof

>>>would convince you of God's existence.

 

>> Well, something I can sense, of course! I have 5 senses, and if you say

>> that I have more senses, then I'm also open to that if you provide GOOD

>> REASONS to think so. For now I only see reasons to think I have 5 senses.

 

>Ok, fair enough. So what kind of empirical proof, perceivable by one of

>your five senses, would you accept as proof of God?

 

ANYTHING I can sense with my five senses and which proofs God!

 

>> >I don't understand what you mean by epistemological. Please define what

>> >you mean.

>

>> It simply means "ways of getting knowledge."

 

>Ok, so which ways of getting knowledge do you accept?

 

I told you: Logic, empirical knowledge - plus I'm open to whatever other

way of gaining knowledge if you provide GOOD REASONS to believe that way of

getting knowledge is valid.

 

>>So if you can give me GOOD

>> REASONS to think that the way of knowledge you present are valid, then I

>> will, of course, try it out.

 

>I can give you very good reasons, but I suspect we don't have the same

>definitions of good, so before I launch into all the good reasons for

>believing in God, please define what you mean by 'good reason.'

 

I already did, see above!

 

Best wishes,

The Devil's Advocate