Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[cj.23]

To be fair, he has stated that God and Zeus are not testable by "experimental science" - quoted in the post I linked to above (what he actually said was, "That is not to say one might not test the Zeus and God hypothesis, but not by experimental science."). He hasn't really said what form this non-scientific "testing" could take. He also has yet to say how we can determine whether a particular entity is a god, which he considers it sensible to believe in, or an invisible goblin, which he doesn't.

Hey Mojo, exactly. there are issues with experimentally testing Gods as supernatural entities that follow logically from the notion of a supernatural entity, and from personhood, and as I keep saying one of the critical issues is the fact science rules any such claim invalid anyway by the a priori principle of methodological naturalism. So for Gods, entities external to time/space, and authors of Natural Law, (by which I mean physicalism or material existence), sure science is not going to be able to even ask the question legitimately, so to expect to find evidence there would require you to abandon Natural Uniformity, and render every thing subject to the Induction Problem as put forward by Hume and referenced by me many times in this discussion.

Noone has seriously suggested we abandon methodological naturalism, and start ascribing things in science to supernatural causality -- I haven't anyway, and i don't think anyone else has. But if you exclude supernatural entities from the legitimate discourse of science, you can't expect that discourse to provide veidence for supernatural entities - it is as I keep saying a completely circular argument. Hence the recourse mentioned by MM to philosophy, and as I pointed out other ways of knowing - direct experience, history, etc.

Now, my (somewhat facetious) Invisble Goblins. My argument was quite simply this: if Invisible Goblins exist in nature, and are not outside of Time/Space, I think it fair to assume they work on exactly the same rules as any other Naturalistic phenomena. Anything in Nature, from New York City to the motions of asteroids to if it exists ESP would follow the same set of natural laws. If Invisible Goblins violate the laws of Thermodynamics, there are no Invisible Goblins. Now when I thought up Invisible goblins as an alleged phenomena i actually had in mind poltergeist cases -- and i don't think that if they exist poltergeists are supernatural (I could of course be wrong, but if so I am wasting my time investigating them.)

The distinction is critical, because it's what separates parapsychology, which tries to discover natural laws which underlie unusual events, from say occultism, which postulates such entities ar not lawful, or rather follow their own rules. Parapsychologist believ that anomalous phenomena represent gaps in our current understanding of the laws of nature, but do not reject lawfulness. If ESP exists, we can expect to find a cause for it, a mechanism. If Invisible goblins exist, we would expect to be able to measure, define nd locate them, in the same way we search and test for say higg's Boson or a rare marsupial. Ther eis no problem with methodological naturalism here, because invisible Goblins would be, if thy existed, natural entities...

Hope that clarifies.
cj x

 

[Darat]

...snip...

However, in as far as not possessing the exclusivity of truth [/SIZE]the official/authorised definition of my self-applied label does matches up perfectly with my beliefs -- Anglicanism does not claim to represent the "sole objective truth".

...snip...

Yes it does from its 39 articles to the creeds it says are the right creeds. To argue otherwise is to redefine the CofE/Anglicanism to be something it is not.

...snip...

You think we think Methodists are bound to hell, or that we are right and they are wrong?

...snip...

The CofE as its official doctrine does believe that all other groups that claim to be Christian are wrong if they do not follow the doctrines of the CofE. It is again simply the definition of the CofE that this is so. Whether the CofE would then claim some other self-labelled Christians go to hell or not is irrelevant to that point.

As a Methodist myself (not in belief but it's one of those Christian churches that doesn't accept that us non-voluntary baptised ones are ever anything but Methodist...) certainly my chapel considered the CofE wrong in its doctrines. I would say it is a common aspect of most, if not all, Christian churches to consider the other Churches wrong i.e. they define their beliefs as the correct and true beliefs.

...snip...
The problem here is that the Church I belong to is not what some posters imagine.

...snip...

If there is a "problem here" it is that the CofE is not what you want it to be so you pick and choose from it, just like most people who will apply a certain religious label to themselves do. (And I sincerely don't mean that as an insult, it is the nature of religious belief throughout the world's population and of course it is not just confined to religious beliefs, in other words it is just human nature, we all do it to a lesser and greater degree.)

...snip...
This is I suspect part of the confusion... but there is no essential conflict between my beliefs and those of my Church as far as i know. If I ever go for ordination we will find out - I have been asked to consider it a couple of times in the past.

...snip...

Then you cannot object to how Pixy made his point but you do because you want to be able to re-define what the CofE is; it is rather like what you kept trying to do when I asked about your atheism regarding Zeus. Of course no one can stop you redefining the CofE to be what you want it to be but don't be surprised if people call you on what the Church states are its beliefs if you use the label of CofE/Anglican.

...snip...

I don't have as far as I know any problems with the BCP, Canons or 39 Articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_communion_and_ecumenism gives you an indication we do not believe we are exclusive recipeints of truth. In fact our church uses that as part of the definition of a "cult".

cj x

Sorry but regarding what beliefs you are meant to hold the CofE is completely and utterly proscriptive and prescriptive. You don't want believe in the virgin*, well tough it's in Article II, you don't want to say God is "off infinite power" well that's Article I, that Christ literally resurrected in his body* and the body was taken up into heaven, that's Article IV, and that all that one needs for salvation is in the scriptures - Article VI, you don't believe that everyone in this world deserves God's "wrath and damnation", well again that is the definition of being an Anglican i.e. you are according to the Church meant to believe all of that.

And this is not me telling a Christian what they have to believe, what is the truth of their religion and so on it is what the church itself says a "Christian" must believe.





*I am aware of the CofE Bishops with such views, as I said "you pick and choose from it" the Bishops suffer from that just as much as you and I do.

 

[cj.23]

This post made my day! It is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.

[quote="cj.23"]
I am claiming no such thing,as i am sure reading this thread would inform you? When did i ever claim Anglicanism represented the sole objective truth??!!! Please demonstrate me making this claim, with evidence?!!![/quote]

Hey, if you can't be bothered to read what you write, I don't see why anyone else should have to.

Right, so you can't show I have ver made this claim? Precisely because i have not made it. You have made a wild incorrect leap of logic, probably based on nothing more than a lack of understanding of what Anglicans actually believe. Do I sound like i reject everything but Anglicanism as untrue? How many times in this thread have I stated, that despite the fact no one has yet given me a logical argument for the non-existence of God, I personally believe both atheism and theism are rational positions to hold? You have no evidence I hold the beliefs you impart to me, and lack the decency ot even admit you were mistaken?

Do you believe in God? What conception of God? Why?

Yes, and it's discussed in some detail in the thread entitles Credo: What I believe. The title of that thread started by me gives you a pretty good insight as to it's content and relevance to your question. Search my post history and you shall find it.

Answer me those questions three. Based on your prior answers, what I said accurately summarizes your position.

No it doesn't! It totally misrepresents my position, to an incredible degree. You said...

Here on planet Earth, though, CJ is proclaiming that exclusive truth belongs to a breakaway sect of a breakaway sect of the religion of one particular bronze age desert tribe, based on a very selective reading of a vast body of anecdotes.

Where have I said that? Let's look back over this thread --

Nope, i'm using the traditional Christian doctrine of Ineffability - that no religion, Christianity included, represents the reality of God adequately. Or as I often say "on God I'm wrong -- and so is everyone else" - though I admit it's an unevidenced assertion. To me the difference between Norse paganism and Christianity is one of utility as a model for understanding a divine reality I have reason to believe exists. It's like why I'm an Anglican - it correlates well with my reading of reality. IF I was applying cost/benefit I'd be a Mormon.

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4329210#post4329210

Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread)

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4328422#post4328422

I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is. To use a term from philosophy of science i'm an Objective Instrumentalist, and apply the same reasoning to theology as to science -"the map is not the territory: but different maps can closer approximate the ineffable reality".

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4328617#post4328617

Actually theoretically you can prove there is no God, as a negative can be proven. I understand that is not what you are saying though. Your argument is that is reasonable to not believe in God based upon your reading of the evidence. That I have no disagreement with - you have made that decision (and i have made a differing one.) In the face of insufficient data one must either remain open to the possibilities and await further data, or make a personal choice. No disagreement at all there.

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4328767#post4328767

So sure, it's quite natural and reasonable, even if not strictly rational, to discount the possibility - hence my belief atheism is rational. It does not by any means follow that theism is irrational, or unreasonable. So we are left here, wondering what the hell we do know.

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4328937#post4328937

It does not however demonstrate there is not a god, only that there is no rational basis to conclude such, which is by no means the same thing, leaving atheism irrational as well, unless you can make a positive case. As I think (by the definition of rationality I offered: a property of an argument where the argument is logically coherent and consistent) atheism, agnosticism and theism can be rationally argued, I do not face this problem

from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4328952#post4328952

Anyway last year a friend died (with his boots on) and was cremated in a simple and moving ceremony. He was like his boyfriend a Norse pagan, and we had reading from the Edda's, and Wagner played as the coffin vanished. The funeral was conducted by the wonderful Humanist Association of the GB, who were happy to overlook our desire to introduce some religious elements. Christian and pagan alike we donated to the Humanist cause, then went and drank mead in memory of our fallen friend. I hope he's fighting and drinking in Valhalla today.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4329167#post4329167

That takes us to the end of page 2 of the thread. I could go on! Perhaps if you did not have me on ignore you might be in a better position to respond and less prone to make errors? It does not matter at all, and its easily done, but your statement

Here on planet Earth, though, CJ is proclaiming that exclusive truth belongs to a breakaway sect of a breakaway sect of the religion of one particular bronze age desert tribe, based on a very selective reading of a vast body of anecdotes.

is patently false. I happen to know what I believe, and i assumed this was an attempt at humour, but when I protest it you tell me

Hey, if you can't be bothered to read what you write, I don't see why anyone else should have to.

Really PixyMisa, that is just absurd and funny!

Sorry, I put you on ignore, since if you ever said anything sensible I could be sure someone would quote it.

WOW. Just, like WOW! You are holding a discussion with me, constantly call "FAIL" (which I did feel was a bit childish!) and when I refute your points never acknowledge it, and then you put me on Ignore?

I am I must admit stunned. All the evidence i have seen in the past suggest to me you are an intelligent, critical thinker with a capacity for reason. Yet you hear arguments you don't like, and then you hit and run by posting a few responses before covering your ears and going "lalalalala" in the hope it will go away? This has to be cognitive dissonance at its worst. Its an object lesson in outgroup ingroup behaviour, and the logical danger of nonsense formulations like "there is no evidence for..." which become statements of ideology, pure dogma. There is an emotional one presumes resistance to evidence which invalidates ones position.

You know what? We all suffer from that. We all like ot be right. We all like to believe we have not succumbed to woo. The only way to establish is we have though is to engage in dailogue. You see that little silver star on my avatar? That was my award for my 5000th post on Richarddawkins.net, where I post as Jerome. I'm on 7000+ posts now. I used to post on Bad Psychics, I've been a member of a number of sceptic organizations and I correspond regularly with a number of former TAM speakers. I have spent years on Biblical Crit, and Biblical History, and World Religion, and taught them all. I have studied psychiatry, psychology & neurology - and why? Because only by dialog, but understanding those who disagree with you,and by sometimes sharing a laugh and your common humanity can you find out if your beliefs are right or wrong. No one learns anything unless they are willing to accept they might be wrong, and as I frequently admit, I know many of my ideas must be wrong. So I have the honesty and courage to listen carefully to what those who disagre with me say, learn and revise my positions. I don't meant to be harsh PixyMisa - I think you are as i said and intelligent and astute critic - but I wish you would offer me the same respect, the same open mindedness back... instead of, and i know oyu have not, crying "troll" as some have as some of what I say may seem difficult or confusing to oyu. If it's wrong it is not hard ot show it's wrong after all....

I need a break - I'll return to this in a moment.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Yes it does from its 39 articles to the creeds it says are the right creeds. To argue otherwise is to redefine the CofE/Anglicanism to be something it is not.

Where???

The CofE as its official doctrine does believe that all other groups that claim to be Christian are wrong if they do not follow the doctrines of the CofE. It is again simply the definition of the CofE that this is so. Whether the CofE would then claim some other self-labelled Christians go to hell or not is irrelevant to that point.

It claims they are not part of the Anglican Communion. That does not mean we think they are wrong, that is there beliefs are all false? Can you how me where we teach other christians are wrong?

As a Methodist myself (not in belief but it's one of those Christian churches that doesn't accept that us non-voluntary baptised ones are ever anything but Methodist...) certainly my chapel considered the CofE wrong in its doctrines. I would say it is a common aspect of most, if not all, Christian churches to consider the other Churches wrong i.e. they define their beliefs as the correct and true beliefs.

They believe there beliefs better approach truth. Find me a statement which says we are exclusively right?

If there is a "problem here" it is that the CofE is not what you want it to be so you pick and choose from it, just like most people who will apply a certain religious label to themselves do. (And I sincerely don't mean that as an insult, it is the nature of religious belief throughout the world's population and of course it is not just confined to religious beliefs, in other words it is just human nature, we all do it to a lesser and greater degree.)

Yes, accepted. I think the key point here is that exclusivity implies the belief taht all other religions and denominations are wrong - at leats it does the way PixyMisa formulated it. I certainly do not claim the CofE to be more correct tthan a Methodist.

Then you cannot object to how Pixy made his point but you do because you want to be able to re-define what the CofE is; it is rather like what you kept trying to do when I asked about your atheism regarding Zeus. Of course no one can stop you redefining the CofE to be what you want it to be but don't be surprised if people call you on what the Church states are its beliefs if you use the label of CofE/Anglican.[/quotte]

A) PixyMisa's claim was about my beliefs, and patently untrue - see my previous post.
B) show me where the Anglican Church claims ot be the exclusive repository of religious truth? I shall email the Archbishop if you want a definitive pronouncement on this matter - I think we both know what the response will be from Lambeth Palace.

Sorry but regarding what beliefs you are meant to hold the CofE is completely and utterly proscriptive and prescriptive. You don't want believe in the virgin*, well tough it's in Article II, you don't want to say God is "off infinite power" well that's Article I, that Christ literally resurrected in his body* and the body was taken up into heaven, that's Article IV, and that all that one needs for salvation is in the scriptures - Article VI, you don't believe that everyone in this world deserves God's "wrath and damnation", well again that is the definition of being an Anglican i.e. you are according to the Church meant to believe all of that.

Yes i can believe all of that - it's part of the definition of what it means to be an ANglican. Where does that sauy we got it all right though? I can be a Cub Scout and hold the Scouts code of conduct and beliefs without ever needing to claim they represent ultimet metaphysical truth? You se emy point? Regardless, in the thread i have made quite clear what my positions are i think. (see previous response to PixyMisa).

And this is not me telling a Christian what they have to believe, what is the truth of their religion and so on it is what the church itself says a "Christian" must believe.

This is the Anglican Church defining what Anglicans believe - the two ar enot synonymous, for reasons i gace in my last reply.

Still I appreciate your point, but I do not believe what PixyMisa said,a nd i think most Anglicans regard me as entirely orthodox in that! (see Ecumencialism link for evidence.)

cj x

 

[Darat]

Where???

To answer all your points I really only need to quote you the first Article:

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

​

(Had to grab the text of a website, I think it's the correct form http://acl.asn.au/the-thirty-nine-articles/)

 

[cj.23]

Hey Silentknight - I need a break from what I was ddoing, and this is interesting...

The problem with your analogies is that you're looking at them backwards.

1) The microwave background is a prediction of the Big Bang theory, in that if an expansion occurred 14 billion years ago, we'd expect to see its fingerprints in the form of microwave radiation. Sure enough, this is what has been found. It was because of this testable prediction that cosmologists searched for and found said background.

Except that is precisely what did not happen. The discovery of CMBR was an accident, when cleaning bird droppings off a piece of equipment still gave an anomalous signal, and the CMBR was discovered quite by chance. There had been speculation it might exist by one cosmologist, I forget his name, some thirty years earlier - but he looked and did not find it, and did not recieve the credit for the discovery. CMBR is an exmple of a discover y that did not come about through prediction - that was one of the reasons i included it, but it i a good example of arguing from the evidence, not from theory and the hypothetico-deductive method.

T
2) The fossil record was evidence of creatures that lived long ago. People were discovering fossils before Darwin formulated the theory of evolution. In China, for example, they thought they were the bones of dragons, and in North America, the native tribes thought they were the bones of thunder birds. Once we had the theory of evolution however, it made predictions about what types of transitional fossils we should expect to find. Sure enough, many of these fossils have been discovered.

Except we have not found many transitional fossils - a few, and again, the evidence here came first, and the theory was an example of a grounded theory - one derived from the evidence, not the hypothetico-deductive reasoning suggested.

T
3) Caesar had reasons prior to the invasion, including pre-emption against the mobilizing Gallic tribes, the military prestige it would earn him, and the debts he had to settle at the time. In other words, this would also fall under a prediction and that which logically follows from it.

Not so. This is clearly not a prediction - Caesar has many other options, and I don't think any one outside of marxist circles believes history si deterministic to that extent???

T
4) Also a prediction, which the experiment was designed to test.

Agreed. The basis of the the theory which was tested of ecourse was empircial observations of the universe, and rational claculations of the models used.

T
5) The possible presence of an infection causing germ in an ailing organ is not an unreasonable prediction either, considering that we already know that disease germs cause a lot of ailments. Finding the bacteria would confirm this prediction.

Exxcept in fact almost noone believed that was the case, and scepticism to the theory prevailed in ot the early 1990's. Full discussion of Heliobacter Pylori here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#History and in fact the evidence for a causal relationship was as i said long disputed. The argument was from the bacterium up - the predictive hypothesis was then confirmed over the established hypothesis.

In order for your analogy to work, you'd have to establish that the theory of God's existence makes the testable prediction that people experience him. There are a few problems with this line of reasoning though. Do we have reason to think that God works that way? Is there a mechanism of interaction by which he gives people experiences? Would God give two different people the same experiences? Can these experiences be duplicated in different people, including nonbelievers? In other words, you can't go from "experience" to "God exists." It's only evidence of people's belief in God, where God still may or may not exist.

You think prediction i sthe mark of science? (I don't think the existence of God is a scientific question for reasons i have spelt out, or that Scienc eis the only way of knowing but let's run with this...) How is evolution predictive? Is Evolution therefore not a scientific hypothesis??? What about meterology? Plenty of examples exist where the symmetry of explanation and prediction suggested by Hempel's covering law break down. I can cite som eif you are interested - it is the major reason why predictiveness can to be taken as a requirement of Science in the demarcation debate.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

To answer all your points I really only need to quote you the first Article:

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

​

(Had to grab the text of a website, I think it's the correct form http://acl.asn.au/the-thirty-nine-articles/)

Yeah that's a completely correct quote. What in that excludes Methodists, Catholics, the Orthodox etc, etc? They believe exactly the same thing. Sure it excludes Unitarians - but we don't deny they posses truth, or can be saved, or say they are not Christians? So nope, we are not Exclusivist...

cj x

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Christ, can you guys lighten up on cj already? He's been very polite, and these extraneous issues are plugging up the thread.

 

[Darat]

Yeah that's a completely correct quote. What in that excludes Methodists, Catholics, the Orthodox etc, etc? They believe exactly the same thing. Sure it excludes Unitarians - but we don't deny they posses truth, or can be saved, or say they are not Christians? So nope, we are not Exclusivist...

cj x

cj x

Two points:

1) The other churches do not believe "exactly the same thing" as the Anglicans. All of the other churches you mention have many issues and disagreements with many of the articles. The articles are the major definition of the Anglican/CofE religion, only the Anglican church is defined by those articles.

2) That first article clearly states that there is a sole objective truth for example its very first phrase is claiming that "There is but one living and true God...".

That is a definitive statement of truth and is something every single Anglican is meant to accept as the truth. If you claim that is not making a definitive statement of truth I would like to see your evidence.

 

[Mojo]

Hope that clarifies.

Not really, because you still haven't explained how to differentiate between gods, which you say are supernatural entities only detectable from the apparently naturalistic results of their actions, and invisible goblins, which you defined as natural entities only detectable from the apparently naturalistic result of their actions.

Given that you can only detect the results of an entity's action, how can you tell whether the entity is natural or supernatural?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
Except we have not found many transitional fossils - a few, and again, the evidence here came first, and the theory was an example of a grounded theory - one derived from the evidence, not the hypothetico-deductive reasoning suggested.

Hi CJ! After Yrreg I would think you would be considered a welcome breath of fresh air!

Technically, ALL the fossils are transitional, but I know what you mean. In the sense that you mean it, hundreds of transitionals have been found, and more are discovered all the time. How many would it take before you would think it was more than 'a few'?

Snip
You think prediction i sthe mark of science? (I don't think the existence of God is a scientific question for reasons i have spelt out, or that Scienc eis the only way of knowing but let's run with this...) How is evolution predictive? Is Evolution therefore not a scientific hypothesis??? What about meterology? Plenty of examples exist where the symmetry of explanation and prediction suggested by Hempel's covering law break down. I can cite som eif you are interested - it is the major reason why predictiveness can to be taken as a requirement of Science in the demarcation debate.
cj x

Evolution IS used to make predictions. Predictions based on evolution aided in the discovery of Tiktaalik. A geobiologist can estimate the number and type of various species that will be found on a landmass based on it's geology, including how long it has been separated from other landmasses because of the time needed for speciation in isolation due to evolution. Even I can predict that a large population of insects will evolve some kind of resistance to a new insecticide if it is used too widely and often.

 

[cj.23]

Hi CJ! After Yrreg I would think you would be considered a welcome breath of fresh air!

Technically, ALL the fossils are transitional, but I know what you mean. In the sense that you mean it, hundreds of transitionals have been found, and more are discovered all the time. How many would it take before you would think it was more than 'a few'?

Ug.... How stupid of me - you are of course completely right! "transitional fossil" is like the probably false dichotomy between "macro" and "microevolution" just one of those things you pick up debating Creationists - and I walked straight in to it. What I meant was that morphologists have not often predicted a structure that has subsequently been discovered in the fossil evidence to the best of my knowledge, but that in no way renders morphology a non-predictive science. It is, and a fascinating one.

Evolution IS used to make predictions. Predictions based on evolution aided in the discovery of Tiktaalik. A geobiologist can estimate the number and type of various species that will be found on a landmass based on it's geology, including how long it has been separated from other landmasses because of the time needed for speciation in isolation due to evolution. Even I can predict that a large population of insects will evolve some kind of resistance to a new insecticide if it is used too widely and often.

We could get in to a lengthy discussion here, but I'll accept your point, not least because one thing that really infuriates me is being told that Evolution is not a predictive science, usually used as an excuse to then hit me with some variant of Henry Morris' YEC as the real science of Creation. Let me think of a better example of my point then.



cj x

 

[PixyMisa]

Christ, can you guys lighten up on cj already? He's been very polite, and these extraneous issues are plugging up the thread.

Polite, yes. Coherent too, which is a refreshing change. And completely wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Polite, yes. Coherent too, which is a refreshing change. And completely wrong.

OK, so we agree.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

No one can be rational. The pattern-matching that the human brain performs continually results in countless irrational associations. We call these irrational associations "neuroses".

Since the question seems to be more "is atheism rational", the answer is yes. The lack of demonstrable evidence for one or more gods is sufficient to justify the weak atheistic position as rational. The sheer volume of mutually exclusive god-claims justifies the strong atheistic position as rational, as well.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Snipping what Mister Agenda already responded to.

Except that is precisely what did not happen. The discovery of CMBR was an accident, when cleaning bird droppings off a piece of equipment still gave an anomalous signal, and the CMBR was discovered quite by chance. There had been speculation it might exist by one cosmologist, I forget his name, some thirty years earlier - but he looked and did not find it, and did not recieve the credit for the discovery. CMBR is an exmple of a discover y that did not come about through prediction - that was one of the reasons i included it, but it i a good example of arguing from the evidence, not from theory and the hypothetico-deductive method.

I can admit I was mistaken about the exact details of the history. However, this doesn't change the fact that the Big Bang was already an established theory, which does predict such a background, in addition to explaining it after it was discovered. This is not analogous to taking personal anectotes as evidence for something there is no theory for at all. If we had a theory based on previously observed signs of God's activity on Earth, then at a later time found people who had repeatable God experiences, I would not deem it unreasonable.

Not so. This is clearly not a prediction - Caesar has many other options, and I don't think any one outside of marxist circles believes history si deterministic to that extent???

I wasn't quite saying that, I was saying that there's another way of looking at it. Plus, the fact that Caesar had motives, the fact that he ordered it, is a pretty good reason to connect the campaign to him. I don't see how this is analogous to your argument that personal experience is evidence for an ontological claim about God. What are God's reasons and motives? Where are his orders, and do we see his name signed on anything he does?

Exxcept in fact almost noone believed that was the case, and scepticism to the theory prevailed in ot the early 1990's. Full discussion of Heliobacter Pylori here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#History and in fact the evidence for a causal relationship was as i said long disputed. The argument was from the bacterium up - the predictive hypothesis was then confirmed over the established hypothesis.

I was saying it's not unreasonable, given that we already have plenty of examples of disease germs causing, well, diseases, to think that something else would fit the same cause-and-effect pattern. Plus, this is something science can investigate, so by your own admission, it's not analogous. The point still stands, that we only have evidence for people's belief in God, not evidence for the existence of God. The latter would have to involve something God does, as I mentioned before. Can it be shown that God is giving people these experiences?

 

[truethat]

I don't understand the continued fighting in this thread. You asked a question. I clearly answered it so the point is redundant at this stage?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Uhmm, CJ, could you please respond to my post #273?

 

[RandFan]

Yeah that's a completely correct quote. What in that excludes Methodists, Catholics, the Orthodox etc, etc? They believe exactly the same thing. Sure it excludes Unitarians - but we don't deny they posses truth, or can be saved, or say they are not Christians? So nope, we are not Exclusivist...

Didn't you say in another post that "all beliefs in god were equally valid. Different maps that lead to the same destination." Or something like that?

I'm sorry if I remembered wrong.

Thanks

 

[arthwollipot]

Christ, can you guys lighten up on cj already? He's been very polite, and these extraneous issues are plugging up the thread.

Agreed. I was considering unsubscribing from this thread, which is a pity, because there were some interesting issues being discussed earlier. Recently it's been wall-of-text and tl;dr.