Is it?

[slingblade]

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

Not I.

This is twice today that someone thought posting a public message on a public forum means only the person addressed has the right of response.

If one wants to address a specific person, and only that person, one ought to PM that person. Otherwise, if it's posted here, it's fair game for response from anyone reading.

You've also made a sweeping statement there. I do not think there is any topic or subject about which I personally hold the only correct view. However, there are some topics and subjects about which I do think my view is correct. I never think that I am the only human being alive on the planet who thinks so, though. That's all okay with you, isn't it?

Trying again:

I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions.

I disagree with that.

The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?

No.

 

[drkitten]

I still think that natural scientists are biased.

That, of course, is your opinion.

It just happens to be more or less groundless.

If there were a god, there would be consequences for them. One of them is that they should obey his will, which they do not want to.

Balderdash. A substantial fraction of natural scientists are in fact theists (case in point, Dr. Miller, the expert witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover[, is a practicing Catholic and a published author on the subject of god and science. (See Finding Darwin's God, available at Amazon.com.) He has no problem obeying what he sees as God's will.

Another, is having to say that there is something bigger than you, which one might not want out of arrogance.

Again, balderdash. Most theistic natural scientists have no problem saying that God is bigger than they are.

Another is changing your way of life. They are biased with relationship to god.

Again, balderdash.

You seem to think of "natural scientists" as some sort of uniform atheist bloc. This is utterly wrong. But even the theistic scientists "have no need of that hypothesis" when they are doing their bench science -- Miller has never found any direct evidence of God's work in any of his researches, and the best evidence he can offer for God in Finding Darwin's God is a rather weak philosophical argument based on the anthropic principle. Martin Gardner is another well known theistic scientist, but he's never found evidence of God in any of his mathematical formulae. They have no problem (emotionally or otherwise) acknowleging the existence of God in their personal lives -- but that acknowledgement still has no effect on their professional lives. In some cases it goes further : they will willingly undertake tremendous professional hardships for pesonal moral (religious-based) reasons, but they still have no direct evidence of God in their professional areas of expertise.

In fact, the only people (I hesitate to use the word "scientists") who do make a point of invoking God in their professional lives are the charlatans like Behe, who ended up admitting in testimony at Kitzmiller that what he was proposing was closer to astrology than to science.

There's no problem for natural scientists to believe in God. But there's also no demonstrated need.

 

[JetLeg]

deleted by user

 

[jond]

Why what?

 

[Bri]

My point was that you can give some arguments for inc-imm-beings that would not be based on evidence.

A valid ontological argument (if you had one) would be considered evidence.

However, all ontological arguments are based on the assumption that its premises are true and that its conclusions follow logically from its premises, neither of which is necessarily the case.

So you are free to present such arguments for the existence of God (or of inconsequential beings) but that doesn't mean that anyone else has to accept your argument as valid evidence.

But I feel that if we go into it, we will diverge from the topic. All I wanted to say is that you can try to prove im-inc-beings with reason, without evidence, as in the argument above. I do not think that the argument above is a good one, but it does show that such type of discussion is possible.

I understand what you're trying to say, but your distinction between an "argument" and "evidence" is unfounded. If an argument is valid, it counts as evidence. Unfortunately, I've never seen an irrefutably valid ontological argument for God (much less for an inconsequential being).

There is a category of proofs which try to proove that something exists, merely by analyzing the ideas we have about reality, without evidence. Descartes' proof of god was another example of such an attempt.

(emphasis mine) I think you mean without physical evidence.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Not I.

This is twice today that someone thought posting a public message on a public forum means only the person addressed has the right of response.

If one wants to address a specific person, and only that person, one ought to PM that person. Otherwise, if it's posted here, it's fair game for response from anyone reading.

You've also made a sweeping statement there. I do not think there is any topic or subject about which I personally hold the only correct view. However, there are some topics and subjects about which I do think my view is correct. I never think that I am the only human being alive on the planet who thinks so, though. That's all okay with you, isn't it?

Trying again:



I disagree with that.



No.

That is better, but still, thinking that the majority of people that held a view about a complex issue are simply delluded is arrogant, no?

As to the meaning - don't you think that life should have meaning then?

 

[Bri]

Does that not leave you cold-hearted, without emotion?

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

(emphasis mine) I think you mean without physical evidence.

-Bri

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

 

[Bri]

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

No, the majority of the human race isn't deluded. The majority of the human race admits that their belief in gods is based on faith rather than fact.

Unless I have entirely misunderstood you, you do seem to be deluded. But you're in the minority in that regard.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

* scratching head *
* scratching head *

Can you give me one example more?

 

[drkitten]

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

Logical evidence.

As a simple example -- if someone is on the witness stand and swears that on Monday night they were in Houston, and then five minutes later swears that they were in Calcutta, and ten minutes later swears that they were in Istanbul,.... they can't be in all three places on the same evening. I don't need to look at any physical objects except perhaps a world-map to know that the witness is lying, and therefore I should disregard his testimony.

There's also experiential evidence, which may or may not be physical depending on how you feel about Descartes' ghost in the machine. The taste of chocolate is experiential, but not necessarily physical -- no physical chemist in the world can analyze the molecules and tell me how it tastes. The only way for me to know the taste of chocolate is to put some in my mouth.

 

[slingblade]

That is better, but still, thinking that the majority of people that held a view about a complex issue are simply delluded is arrogant, no?

I see you weighing my answers and finding them wanting. G'head. Won't hurt me.

Oh...I never called anyone "deluded." That was someone else who said that.

As to the meaning - don't you think that life should have meaning then?

You use a lot of subjective terms. "Should," and "meaning," for example. I'm willing to bet we'll never agree on definitions of those terms that suit us both equally well, so what's the point of asking?

My life has no meaning. I have no purpose. Yet, I'm still here. Sucks, don't it?

 

[jond]

Again, balderdash. Most theistic natural scientists have no problem saying that God is bigger than they are.

To say nothing of athiests who are well aware that human beings are merely one species of millions here on earth, which is but one tiny planet in an enormous universe. How is that an arrogant position? Isn't it more arrogant to imagine that there's a supreme being who created man in his image?

 

[Bri]

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

According to Wikipedia:

• Intuition
• Personal experience
• Testimonial
• Anecdotal evidence
• Scientific evidence

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It is a deeper issue, it is about bringing meaning to someone's life.

And if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, that means Harry Potter exists?

And I never said anything about reading a book.

Slingblade's example is actually better than mine. How does slingblade know about Harry Potter? How do you know about God?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

And if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, that means Harry Potter exists?



Slingblade's example is actually better than mine. How does slingblade know about Harry Potter? How do you know about God?

-Bri

No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

 

[Bri]

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

* scratching head *
* scratching head *

Can you give me one example more?

The idea of gnomes makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, gnomes must exist? If you don't believe in gnomes , does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

 

[jond]

No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

What's the difference? Fiction is fiction.

 

[Bri]

No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

You are half right. Please give me the key differences between God and Harry Potter that would make the statement correct about one but not the other? How about pixies and gnomes? Want another example?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

They just are different.