An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

Reasonably...

The question "am I a brain in a vat" deserves about as much attention as...

"is the earth the center of the universe?"
"is evolution a correct description of how life progresses?"
"is there such a thing as gravity"
"is the earth flat?"
"is climate change being substantially impacted by humans?"

Except all those other things can be proven or disproven.

[seer]

Neither can theists "know" of course, though many of them like to pretend that they do.

Jesus loves you Jim - He told me personally!

[JimL]

Jesus loves you Jim - He told me personally!

Hmm, I'd see a professional about that if I were you seer.

[seer]

Hmm, I'd see a professional about that if I were you seer.

I agree, Jesus must be nuts to love you!

[element771]

You snipped the key part of my sentence. Again: Science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Science is specifically and consciously unconcerned with a hypothetical supernatural universe.

Well yes they are. The likes of WL Craig attempt to use science to reinforce their supernatural theistic worldview, a worldview which is contrary to that of science.

Just because scientific methodology operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism doesn't mean that the findings of science are some how off limits.

But they aren't using the scientific method, they are using the conclusions.

The conclusions generated by the scientific method are distinct from the process.

This is not feasible because cross discipline studies are necessary to provide a complete picture of reality. The findings in both the hard and soft sciences often guide the other.

I am not arguing this.

I am arguing that WLC uses scientific findings in his philosophical argument and that there is nothing wrong with this.

Again, he isn't using the scientific method..just the conclusions from science. This is not the abuse of science because WLC doesn't claim to be "doing" science.

[element771]

Interesting and well put. I often get questioned about this by Christians here, suggesting that I'm a hypocrite or something, being that I'm listed as agnostic, but that I argue like an atheist, like a non-believer. I am a non believer, but I also can't say that I have certain knowledge. Neither can theists "know" of course, though many of them like to pretend that they do.

I think that is because we are all "by definition" agnostic in a sense. No one can know with certainty.

But if we all sat around and said "I don't know"...that would not make for interesting conversation.

[element771]

[CARPESPLAIN]

You see them as distinct, and that is certainly a common way of defining the terms. A lot of people do:

Theist - there is a god
Atheist - there is no god
Agnostic - it is not possible to know.

I am a bit more strict with my language. The prefix "a" means "without" or "not." Theist is from the greek "theos" for "god." So:

Theist - God
Atheist - Not God or Without God

I am atheist because I believe there is no god.

Gnostic is from the greek "gnostos" for "knowing" or "knowledge." So literally, the terms mean:

Gnostic*: knowing/knowledge
Agnostic: without knowing/knowledge

The part of me that is indeed "post-modernist" and holds that knowledge in the human person can never be shown to be "perfect," means that my belief about god is not a sure thing. Further evidence may show that my current belief is wrong. That does not stop me from taking the bulk of information I have and coming to a working conclusion. Likewise, it is possible we will discover that gravity is not what we think it is; that doesn't stop me from observing its effects and living my life accordingly. So I am an agnostic atheist: I believe there is no god, but I recognize the limits of knowledge and recognize I could discover, at some point, that I am wrong about it. That's especially true because god is "supernatural," which makes this being difficult/impossible to study.

Ultimately, the way those terms are defined, most Christians I have met are agnostic theists. The believe there is a god (theist) but believe that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at by faith alone (agnostic). None of them reject reason and the application of reason to understand this god and his/her/its universe, but they reject that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at via knowledge.

[/CARPESPLAIN]

I can hear the accusations of "redefinition" being typed already...

*Gnosticism, BTW, is/was a Christian "heresy" (a word that appears to mean that the majority of the Christian sects went a different way) that held that an experience of god and salvation could be arrived at through knowledge, setting it apart from the "by faith alone" creed of the rest of the church.

I agree with most of your points.

However, I never bought into the whole atheists do not make a knowledge claim.

"Not God" or "Without God" is still a claim to knowledge.

I also agree that everyone is agnostic X, because no one can know if X if true 100%. However, if everyone took that moniker...what would there be to talk about?

[JimL]

I think that is because we are all "by definition" agnostic in a sense. No one can know with certainty.

But if we all sat around and said "I don't know"...that would not make for interesting conversation.

True, but many christians here on tweb have told me in no uncertain terms that they know that god exists, and that they know that that god is the christian god. We can debate our beliefs and discuss why we believe what we do, but asserting absolute knowledge when we all know that no one has such knowledge is irksome.

[carpedm9587]

I agree with most of your points.

However, I never bought into the whole atheists do not make a knowledge claim.

"Not God" or "Without God" is still a claim to knowledge.

Well, here we walk in a bit of a fog. What is the difference between "knowledge" and "belief?"

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

The line between these is nuanced. So I tend to use them as follows: my beliefs are the collection of things I hold to be true. How I get to that belief is a combination of knowledge and faith. Knowledge is based on the collection of "hard evidence" I can gather for (or against) a proposition. Faith is what I use to leap the gap from "99.9% sure it's true" to "I believe it is true."

So, if we take evolution as an example, I look at the biological evidence, the genetic evidence, the fossil evidence, and I am 99.97%* sure evolution is "true." But there are gaps in the fossil record, and there is always the possibility that something will surface tomorrow that will blow it out of the water. I think the chances are infinitesimal, and subsequent finds will simply further flesh out the science, not refute it, but I cannot ignore the possibility.

The same is true of my belief about god. The evidence tells me, "most probably, god does not exist." Based on that evidence, and a bit of faith, I believe there is no god. But I cannot get to certitude on the basis of evidence alone. A bit of faith is required as well. It is why I think, ultimately, theism and atheism are both statements of faith.

I also agree that everyone is agnostic X, because no one can know if X if true 100%. However, if everyone took that moniker...what would there be to talk about?

I'm sure we would find something!

*Did you know that 99.4276% of statistics are made up on the spot?

[element771]

True, but many christians here on tweb have told me in no uncertain terms that they know that god exists, and that they know that that god is the christian god. We can debate our beliefs and discuss why we believe what we do, but asserting absolute knowledge when we all know that no one has such knowledge is irksome.

Interesting as you are not the first atheist from TWEB to tell me that.

Well I am confident that there is a God and I believe that God is the Christian God. But you are correct, I don't know 100%.

[element771]

Well, here we walk in a bit of a fog. What is the difference between "knowledge" and "belief?"

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

The line between these is nuanced. So I tend to use them as follows: my beliefs are the collection of things I hold to be true. How I get to that belief is a combination of knowledge and faith. Knowledge is based on the collection of "hard evidence" I can gather for (or against) a proposition. Faith is what I use to leap the gap from "99.9% sure it's true" to "I believe it is true."

So, if we take evolution as an example, I look at the biological evidence, the genetic evidence, the fossil evidence, and I am 99.97%* sure evolution is "true." But there are gaps in the fossil record, and there is always the possibility that something will surface tomorrow that will blow it out of the water. I think the chances are infinitesimal, and subsequent finds will simply further flesh out the science, not refute it, but I cannot ignore the possibility.

The same is true of my belief about god. The evidence tells me, "most probably, god does not exist." Based on that evidence, and a bit of faith, I believe there is no god. But I cannot get to certitude on the basis of evidence alone. A bit of faith is required as well. It is why I think, ultimately, theism and atheism are both statements of faith.

I'm sure we would find something!

I agree. Huh...looks like we have run out of things to discuss.

*Did you know that 99.4276% of statistics are made up on the spot?

I didn't know that.

Did you know that when reading a meme of Morgan Freeman that the reader automatically hears Morgan Freeman's voice in their head?

[carpedm9587]

I agree. Huh...looks like we have run out of things to discuss.

I didn't know that.

Did you know that when reading a meme of Morgan Freeman that the reader automatically hears Morgan Freeman's voice in their head?

that actually happened!!!

[JimL]

I agree. Huh...looks like we have run out of things to discuss.




I didn't know that.

Did you know that when reading a meme of Morgan Freeman that the reader automatically hears Morgan Freeman's voice in their head?

I don't even know what it means to read someones meme, but did you know that cashews come from a fruit?

[seer]

...but did you know that cashews come from a fruit?

That is a lie from the pit of hell Jimmy. I knew you were the Devil's pawn!

[JimL]

That is a lie from the pit of hell Jimmy. I knew you were the Devil's pawn!

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The cashew begins to exist
the cashew has a cause
and the cause is a fruit, end of story.