Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Logic, Therefore God...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    “Facts”, such as the existence of the natural universe are subject to verification. Otherwise, they are delusions.

    If the universe was not created by a scientifically verifiable event then why would that be a delusion? Is everything not verified by science delusion?
    Last edited by seer; 10-15-2021, 08:51 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post

      If the universe was not created by a scientifically verifiable event then why would that be a delusion? Is everything not verified by science delusion?
      The origin of the universe(s) nevertheless remain open to scientific research as the only alternative option to the unsubstantiated claim that god-did-it.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

        The origin of the universe(s) nevertheless remain open to scientific research as the only alternative option to the unsubstantiated claim that god-did-it.
        But why would a non-scientific explanation be delusional? Why does something have to be open to scientific research to be true?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          But why would a non-scientific explanation be delusional?
          Beliefs that are not supported by verifiable facts are “delusional”.

          Why does something have to be open to scientific research to be true?
          It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            Beliefs that are not supported by verifiable facts are “delusional”.
            Define verifiable facts. Are private personal experiences which can not be proven delusional?

            It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true.
            That statement is self-refuting since it is not scientifically provable, therefore it can't be objectively true and delusional by your own definition.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post

              Define verifiable facts. Are private personal experiences which can not be proven delusional?
              Oxford Dictionary – “Verify”: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified - "his conclusions have been verified by later experiments". Whereas, by contrast, ‘delusional’ means holding beliefs that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.


              That statement is self-refuting since it is not scientifically provable, therefore it can't be objectively true and delusional by your own definition.
              Verified, objective scientific facts are held to be true for all intents and purposes. But you are free to jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower on the basis that 'gravity' may not be true..




              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                Oxford Dictionary – “Verify”: make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified - "his conclusions have been verified by later experiments". Whereas, by contrast, ‘delusional’ means holding beliefs that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.
                But many personal experiences do not contradict reality or rational argument yet can not be verified by experiments.



                Verified, objective scientific facts are held to be true for all intents and purposes. But you are free to jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower on the basis that 'gravity' may not be true..

                Again your statement is self refuting - you do in fact believe that something is objectively true: It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true. That can not be proven scientifically. You undercut your own argument...
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  But many personal experiences do not contradict reality or rational argument yet can not be verified by experiments.
                  There is no way of assessing the veracity of an individual’s subjective feelings – NOR the veracity of other people’s opposing subjective personal experiences.

                  Again your statement is self refuting - you do in fact believe that something is objectively true: It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true. That can not be proven scientifically. You undercut your own argument..
                  No. Scientific methodology can establish objective facts that are held to be true for all intents and purposes. They are not claimed to be ‘proofs’ and in principle they are falsifiable. But, so far, most of the physical Laws and Constants of the universe have held up, e.g., the velocity of light in a vacuum has remained the same.



                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                    There is no way of assessing the veracity of an individual’s subjective feelings – NOR the veracity of other people’s opposing subjective personal experiences.
                    Back to Harris:

                    The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

                    Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe

                    So we only know consciousness by our subjective experience - we don't see it in the physical brain. They very thing that makes us, us is beyond physical science.

                    No. Scientific methodology can establish objective facts that are held to be true for all intents and purposes. They are not claimed to be ‘proofs’ and in principle they are falsifiable. But, so far, most of the physical Laws and Constants of the universe have held up, e.g., the velocity of light in a vacuum has remained the same.

                    That is not the point Tass, you made a claim that you assume to be fact, to be objectively true - but the claim itself is not open to scientific verification. So by your own lights there are facts and truths that are not scientifically knowable...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      Back to Harris:
                      No. NOT back to Harris. I have already said that I don’t accept his idiosyncratic approach. AGAIN: Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity via natural selection. You cherry-pick Harris’s argument when it suits your agenda, namely that ‘god-did-it’, but ignore the fact that your big authority is in fact an atheist which totally undermines the point you are trying to make.

                      That is not the point Tass, you made a claim that you assume to be fact, to be objectively true - but the claim itself is not open to scientific verification. So by your own lights there are facts and truths that are not scientifically knowable...
                      It is precisely the point. Unlike your subjective scenario science can and does establish objective, verifiable FACTS that are held to be true for all intents and purposes. They are not claimed to be ‘proofs’ and in principle they are falsifiable, but in practice they underlie all modern technology.

                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                        No. NOT back to Harris. I have already said that I don’t accept his idiosyncratic approach. AGAIN: Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity via natural selection. You cherry-pick Harris’s argument when it suits your agenda, namely that ‘god-did-it’, but ignore the fact that your big authority is in fact an atheist which totally undermines the point you are trying to make.
                        Tass, can science tell you what it is like for me to smell a rose? That subjective experience? Please show us how....



                        It is precisely the point. Unlike your subjective scenario science can and does establish objective, verifiable FACTS that are held to be true for all intents and purposes. They are not claimed to be ‘proofs’ and in principle they are falsifiable, but in practice they underlie all modern technology.

                        Once again you said: It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true.

                        Is that statement objectively true, is it open to scientific verification? How so?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post

                          Tass, can science tell you what it is like for me to smell a rose? That subjective experience? Please show us how....
                          One cannot compare subjective experiences such as “smelling a rose” or alleged 'divine revelation', because there is no means of verifying which subjective experiences are the definitive ones. Wars have been fought over such things.

                          Once again you said: It needs to be open to scientific research to be shown as objectively true.

                          Is that statement objectively true, is it open to scientific verification? How so?
                          Ah the famous ‘gotcha’ argument against the Logical Positivists.

                          You are invalidly comparing philosophical argumentation with scientific methodology. Science is demonstrably effective at testing and verifying objective facts; it is the basis of our technological world. Philosophy cannot do this. Philosophy is just the restating and repackaging of the verified premises obtained by science.



                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                            One cannot compare subjective experiences such as “smelling a rose” or alleged 'divine revelation', because there is no means of verifying which subjective experiences are the definitive ones. Wars have been fought over such things.
                            Who said anything about Divine Revelation? The point is subjective experience is not open to scientific investigation. Science can never know what it is like for me to smell a rose. Hence physicalism is wrong....



                            Ah the famous ‘gotcha’ argument against the Logical Positivists.

                            You are invalidly comparing philosophical argumentation with scientific methodology. Science is demonstrably effective at testing and verifying objective facts; it is the basis of our technological world. Philosophy cannot do this. Philosophy is just the restating and repackaging of the verified premises obtained by science.
                            Nonsense Tass, I just demonstrated that you believe certain claims to be true, even objectively true, apart from your "scientific methodology." And that is a bit hypocritical on your part.

                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post

                              Who said anything about Divine Revelation? The point is subjective experience is not open to scientific investigation. Science can never know what it is like for me to smell a rose. Hence physicalism is wrong....
                              You “smelling a rose” or a chimpanzee tasting a banana or a mystic gaining enlightenment via ‘divine revelation’ etc., are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                                You “smelling a rose” or a chimpanzee tasting a banana or a mystic gaining enlightenment via ‘divine revelation’ etc., are ALL subjective experiences and ultimately only "true" for the recipient.
                                Right and beyond science. So these experiences which make up most of our lives are not reduceable to scientific knowledge.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
                                68 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Ronson, 10-31-2021, 10:01 AM
                                7 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
                                356 responses
                                1,874 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post DesertBerean  
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                460 responses
                                2,832 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X