Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 >> >That's not necessary. They all say the same things >> >> How can you know if you haven't spoken with all of them? >I can know that the same way I can know a pot of rice has been cooked by >examining just one grain. With this logic I can also know all theists by examining just one of them. I did, and he couldn't prove God. Therefore no theist can prove God. Therefore atheism is the most rational position. >> >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 >Very good. So you admit that to receive knowledge is largely a matter of >accepting authority. Well, I hear what they say, and then I see if it's logical and based on empirical observations. I it is then I have good reasons to believe it. As I said I never saw any good reasons to be a theist. >> >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. >What's wrong with that? Atheists do it all the time. I don't think all atheists do that. I don't. >> Like I told you I'm not prejudiced towards any notion of >> God. >I don't believe that. Can you prove it? The burden of proof must be on you, since you are the one putting forward the alligation. I'm innocent until proven guilty. >> 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 have lots of proof, but I have to know what you will accept as proof >otherwise you could just be wasting my time. What if I present some proof, >and you are not qualified to evaluate it, or even willing to evaluate it? >So before we get into the whole area of evidence you have to let me know >what you will accept as evidence. I already told you! >> >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. >The existence of irreducible complex systems like a cell, suggests design >of a higher intelligence, but atheists don't accept that, so I am not sure >it will be productive to cite scientific proof. That's why I need to know >what you will accept as evidence of God. An irreducible complex system like >a cell suggests ID, but you reject that, on the basis of your imagination >that it was produced by natural selection. Then what will you accept? Just because something is very complex doesn't mean that God did it. This is typically theistic argumentation. That whenever we counter something we can'y explain then God dod it. "God in the gaps." I think such arguments are way to vague to prove anything. They can't make me religious. Is that all you got? >> >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. >We also accept that the universe as an energy is eternal. But obviously it >is not being run blindly without intelligent direction. Please tell me what >observation of the universe suggests that eg. awareness was produced by >matter. Well, we can manipulate conciousness by subjecting it to chemicals. We can even make it have "religious experiences." So as far as I can see all these religious expriences are better explained by psychology than by the existence of something trancendental. We should stick to the most simple explanation (Ockham's Razor) instead of invoking some unnecessary being. >> >I am talking about what's within our experience. Within our experience >> >of the universe, everything is constantly undergoing the three phases of >> >creation, maintenance 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. >To say that consciousness (which directly can be observed to be constant) This is circular reasoning: In order to state that we can observe consciousness to be constant you have to accept consciousness to be constant. Otherwise how can you observe it to be constant. Also: You don't observe it to be constant. Were where your consiousness 500 years ago? I can't remember? Well, probably because your experience of it is not constant. >>Everything we know about consciousness tells us it's simply >> material. >That is a baseless assumption. Can you give any evidence at all that >suggests consciousness is material? If you can give me the chemical formula >of consciousness I will accept that and give up my religion. Of course, you >can't do that, but I will accept even a logical argument. Do you have any? I gave a reason above. Since we can manipulate consciousness by using chemicals it suggests it's material. If it were trancendental how could it be affected? Also, everything within our experience is materiel. Why should we then think consciousness is not? We require some very good reasons, not just some speculations. You say consciousness is spiritual, that means the burden og proof is on you. If you can't prove it, then we have to stick to the most simple explanation - that it's non-spiritual. >> >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 don't find it reasonable at all. In fact, if you were to make a survey of >all the people on the planet, you would find that the majority would appeal >to a higher intelligence in the universe. So your claim that it is the most >reasonable answer is false. This is an appeal to the masses - a logical fallacy. Just because most people on the Earth think there's a higher intelligence behind the universe doesn't make it the most reasonable explanation. Most of the Earth's population are uneducated. If you make such a survey among the educated people then the result is very different. For example, among the scientists from USA 90% are atheists. I would rather listen to educated, informed people than to uneducated people. >> I science we don't go out >> claiming - like religionists always do - that we have some kind of >>perfect >> knowledge. >What's wrong in claiming to have perfect knowledge, when you have it? If you can prove it then there's nothing wrong. >Of >course, atheists cannot make that claim without seeming highly >unintelligent, We prefer to correct our understading when new evidence somes. > but to make the claim on the basis of the Vedas is only >intelligent. Of course if you don't know anything about the Vedas you can't >understand that. I know that a lot in the Vedas contradicts modern, scientific observations. So to me the Vedas are better explanied as mythology. >> We are willing to correct our understanding 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. >You are speaking from a platform of ignorance. In my religion there is no >rule against accepting hardcore scientific facts. SO many scientific theories disprove the Vedas - the Vedic cosmology, and the many fairy tales in the Vedic scriptures. But still you don't change your dogmas. How is that welcoming scientific evidence? > In fact they are welcomed >in Vedanta. One of the methods of acquiring knowledge in Vedanta is >prataksya, which means empiric knowledge. The fact is that there are no >hardcore scientific facts in support of atheism. Atheism is a matter of >pure >belief. So I would like to ask you how you can be an atheist, when there >are >no scientific facts to support it? Atheism means "lack og belief in God/Gods." The burden og proof is on the theists, and before they have provided such proof then we have to be atheists. We don't need any proof. We just need the absence of proofs for God. To invoke God is unnecessary. The world is better explained without God. At least until you show me otherwise. >> >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. >Why is it not convincing to you? Do you have any argument to back up your >conviction? Otherwise you are just arguing from your own incredulity. It seems far out to make analogies between things humans have invented and things from nature. These areas are too different to compare like that. >> >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! >Like what? Give me an example, or admit that God cannot be proven on the >basis of your senses alone. Well, one thing is that He could make Himself visible to me, He could give me a revelation, He could make a wonder. But I have answered your question: If you can bring something which I can sense with my senses then that would be one kind of evidence. I already said I didn't know exactly what it is. You are the one who's supposed to tell me ehat it is. I'm just telling what I see as evidence. >> >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. >But you have shown again and again that you are opposed to logic and good >reason. I have given you logic and reason, like the watch maker analogy and >the existence of irreducible complex systems like a single cell, but you >reject these by saying that you can imagine so many other solutions. What you see as logic and reason I see as unsufficient proof. Therefore I think I'm the one who's being reasonable here. You haven't given me any reasons to believe in your arguments. > So >prove to me that atheism is anything else but an imagination, or define >what >you mean by logic and reason. Like I said: As long as there's no reason to be a theist, then there's good reasons to stick to the atheistic position. I mean the same with logic and reason as what you are tought about it in the universities. What do you mean? > because obviously we don't have the same >understanding of logic and reason. If you don't accept logic and reason as >it is commonly understood then what is the use of demanding proof based on >logic and reason? Well, can you prove that your idea of logic and reason is correct? >I am beginning to think you are not really interested in >logic and reason but are only trying to obfuscate matters, because you know >you have no basis for your claim of atheism. Like I said: I would love a proof for God. But no one is able to provide one. Why not just try and give me one of your reasons? I might accept it. Right now your just wasting our time with a lot of debate. If you just give me your proof, then we can discuss later if we disagree. Don't your religion tell you that yoy should help people to understand God? Then why are you not willing to just give me the proof. If I accept it then it's good, if I don't then we can discuss why. Or maybe you don't really have a proof. Maybe you are hiding behind rhetoric because you know that you, like all other theists, can't prove God? >You didn't define what you mean by logic and reason, you only made a claim >that you accept logic and reason. If you take a course about logic in the university then you will learn what I mean. >But when you are faced with logic and >reason, like the existence of irreducible complex systems like single >cells, >you reject it. Therefore your claim of logic and reason is empty. Can you >prove to me that you accept logic and reason? Can you prove to me that you accept it? If you accept these arguments then I don't think you accept reason and logic. Best wishes, The Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.