God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

a reply to: luthier

I fully understand agnosticism. Do you??

It's about intellectual honesty. It's about acknowledging limitations. We do not have access to anything beyond the known physical universe.

To believe otherwise is in violation of agnosticism. *Unless of course you DO have such access? Do you??

Agnosticism, in respect to god-belief, says we don't have the means to assess it evidentially.

You're the one claiming belief. How have you come to this?

And again I already defined the god I most resonate with. Not one I believe in.

What the hell. You defined a god you resonate with but don't believe in?? What??

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I think we have gone as far as we can go.

You are asking me to define something I can't understand and then playing gotcha...

I have no beliefs..I have inclinations towards thoughts.

I have not claimed a belief you are trying to play gotcha and puposely misrepresenting an argument. Which is a fallacy.

a reply to: luthier

You are asking me to define something I can't understand and then playing gotcha...

So god is incomprehensible? What are you unable to define? Why hold belief in something that is undefinable?

I'm truly not trying to corner you, or win a 'gotcha' moment. I really want to understand you.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

How can you say you are trying to understand me and then say I hold beliefs?

Noemena and phenomenona.

The anthropic principle.

They get in the way of comprehension.

What I see are parts of the teleological argument that seem to make sense. Seem. Because I don't have enough information and neither does cosmology to say they do...

Personal experience also as well other philosophical ideas lead me towards spinosaism. I don't hold a belief that Spinoza is correct. I hold a belief it makes sense with the information I have.

The thought experiments are what I find important. Not a belief.

a reply to: luthier

How can you say you are trying to understand me and then say I hold beliefs?

So you're an atheist like me?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Do you hold a belief there is no genetic predisposition to believe in god? Or have you just not read Boyer's work. Or have you read his work and don't find it compelling?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If someone else were to label me they may call me an implicit athiest. I don't like the label personally. I am not against having a discussion that a form of God could exist.

I also don't like people like Russell in regard to his understanding of the arguments.

But I guess you could say an implicit athiest.

a reply to: luthier

I'm confident my earlier posts satisfied that question, dude. My posts to our moderator Kandinsky.

I'm not as familiar with Boyer's work as I apparently need to be. You mentioned it many times. I will look into it.

Why do you never answer my questions? lol

a reply to: luthier

That was unfair. You have answered most of my questions.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

To be frank I have been stuck with my kids for a week for nearly 24 hours a day, my wife is a research scientist/professor and am probably a little grumpy. Love my kids but it's nice to get out and do adult things as well.

I'm gonna pretend that the 'adult thing' is talking to me! lol

You gotta do what you gotta do.

I will hold your feet to the fire when you return.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

It is partly! Lol. But time without kids is good even just an hour!

Hold my feet to the fire for what?

Cosmology is interesting stuff. The implications of some of string theory is interesting to ponder.

Let's just take one of Aquinas's ways to change topics from science and move back to philosophy.

All things we know of are contingent. Since the universe could also simply not exist there must be a cause of the universe and exist by necessity, it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...

Totally interesting to me. I don't think it proves god and is without fallacy but it sure beats my book says so. In fact I still think about it from time to time and see where science has answered this or not. Infinite regress is a mofo..

a reply to: luthier

it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...

Say we agree that there has to be an eternal component to existence.

Why does that in your eyes have to be an intelligent agency? Why can't that just be an eternal Universe? Or anything else. Why god?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...

Say we agree that there has to be an eternal component to existence.

Why does that in your eyes have to be an intelligent agency? Why can't that just be an eternal Universe? Or anything else. Why god?

Why do you keep saying I am saying something I am not?

You have to do a little better.

Ask your question in reverse. Why does it have to be the universe itself?

That is why I don't hold a belief. Either case is not provable.

a reply to: luthier

Bloody hell. I asked questions. Hence my use of question marks. That's not me assuming your answers, that's me asking for them / seeking clarification. Apparently the dialogue is over.

Ask your question in reverse. Why does it have to be the universe itself?

Apparently the reality we live in demonstrates a Universe exists and a 'god' does not. As I said earlier, I'm open to hearing a compelling argument that shows otherwise.

By the way, I extrapolated your agreement of 'an eternal component to existence' from your quote:

it owes it existence to an uncaused cause...

What is an 'uncaused cause' if not suggesting an eternal component??..

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Why does that in your eyes have to be an intelligent agency?

I never said this. I was quoting Aquinas in 5 ways. And showing it's validity as a thought experiment.

What is an 'uncaused cause' if not suggesting an eternal component??..

Could be a lot of things.
An illusion?
Lack of understanding?
God?
A multiverse?
Multiple dimensions?


Does dark matter exist?

Do you exist?

What do you mean it demoatrates god does not exist?

a reply to: luthier

Aquinas believed in an ultimate intelligent agency. Are you really faulting me for inferring the same about you when you invoke him?

Let's set that aside, do you or do you not believe intelligent agency is behind all of existence??

I base my convictions on experiential knowledge. What do you base yours on?

What do you mean it demoatrates god does not exist?

What? Not sure what you're referring to.

a reply to: luthier

That is why I don't hold a belief. Either case is not provable.

Let's put the god example aside, and invoke a different one.

I posit that fire golems live inside the core of planet Earth. Do you believe this proposition? I imagine when hooked up to a lie detector (one that works) it would read you were telling the truth when you said you did not believe.

Now, if I asked you whether you were absolutely certain fire golems didn't live in the Earth's core, you would likely say no and you would do so out of honesty and the lie detector would reflect this.

Point is, one can, and often does, hold belief absent certainty.

I lack belief in any god(s), and yet I make no claim of knowledge whether they exist or not. My lack of belief is not contingent on my certainty of them not existing.

It's no different for Vishnu or Santa Clause.

It's claims are scientific.

God transcends all and everything and every moment.

God and science can't completely be separated. If God exists, there should be some sort of overlap, where the influence of what we would call God is seen in certain gaps in science.
Certain gaps in scientific knowledge could be exactly what we would expect to find if a God existed.