The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Strong Words
 
Blind Belief
 

Thuggish
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 46

ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.




I think, therefor I am.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Macmade
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 440

Thuggish wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.




I think, therefor I am.


That is Descarte's argument for self-existentialism, nothing to do with the argument here?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Thuggish
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 46

Macmade wrote:
Thuggish wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.




I think, therefor I am.


That is Descarte's argument for self-existentialism, nothing to do with the argument here?


Dawkins said he can't even believe in his own existence.

Descartes' idea is in contrast to that. That (his existence) was the first thing he said he actually could know to be true.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pgtips
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Location:
Posts: 954

Thuggish wrote:
Macmade wrote:
Thuggish wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.




I think, therefor I am.


That is Descarte's argument for self-existentialism, nothing to do with the argument here?


Dawkins said he can't even believe in his own existence.

Descartes' idea is in contrast to that. That (his existence) was the first thing he said he actually could know to be true.


No, Dawkins said he can't say for sure that God doesn't exist.

He is a man known as an all out atheist, when he actually identifies himself as an agnostic. albeit an agnostoc who thinks that there is a minscule chance of a God existing.

This is not due to fence sitting, but due to his scientific view of the world. He realises there could be a God, but he really thinks that there is not.

Nothing to do with whether ot not he thinks he himself exixts.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades


how do you know? you cannot know without using your senses to validate this... viciously circular argumentation.



Forgot about this thread.

It speaks volumes that you have to drift so far away from religion, into Philosophy 101 territory, in order to defend it. Are you telling me that you live your life as though you can't trust your senses? That you live, day to day, as though you live in a truly subjective reality? I, for one, don't wake up and tell myself "today, cars are ephemeral and can drive through me without causing harm." I don't live this way because experiential reality tends to be pretty objective in this regard, and the validity of my senses is similarly consistent.
If your daughter were to fall ill, would you rely on logic or faith in order to remedy her? I would assume that your God could heal her (omnipotent) and would heal her (all-loving), but something tells me you would rationally consider the use of medicine that has empirically been shown to be effective.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Macmade
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 440

bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades


how do you know? you cannot know without using your senses to validate this... viciously circular argumentation.



Forgot about this thread.

It speaks volumes that you have to drift so far away from religion, into Philosophy 101 territory, in order to defend it. Are you telling me that you live your life as though you can't trust your senses? That you live, day to day, as though you live in a truly subjective reality? I, for one, don't wake up and tell myself "today, cars are ephemeral and can drive through me without causing harm." I don't live this way because experiential reality tends to be pretty objective in this regard, and the validity of my senses is similarly consistent.
If your daughter were to fall ill, would you rely on logic or faith in order to remedy her? I would assume that your God could heal her (omnipotent) and would heal her (all-loving), but something tells me you would rationally consider the use of medicine that has empirically been shown to be effective.


Thumbs up, someone knows what he/she's talking about

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Thuggish
Level

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 46

pgtips wrote:
Thuggish wrote:
Macmade wrote:
Thuggish wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.




I think, therefor I am.


That is Descarte's argument for self-existentialism, nothing to do with the argument here?


Dawkins said he can't even believe in his own existence.

Descartes' idea is in contrast to that. That (his existence) was the first thing he said he actually could know to be true.


No, Dawkins said he can't say for sure that God doesn't exist.

He is a man known as an all out atheist, when he actually identifies himself as an agnostic. albeit an agnostoc who thinks that there is a minscule chance of a God existing.

This is not due to fence sitting, but due to his scientific view of the world. He realises there could be a God, but he really thinks that there is not.

Nothing to do with whether ot not he thinks he himself exixts.


Well then whoever I quoted above misspoke and I took it for granted.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ReformedRicky
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Location: California, USA
Posts: 16

bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades


how do you know? you cannot know without using your senses to validate this... viciously circular argumentation.



Forgot about this thread.

It speaks volumes that you have to drift so far away from religion, into Philosophy 101 territory, in order to defend it. Are you telling me that you live your life as though you can't trust your senses? That you live, day to day, as though you live in a truly subjective reality? I, for one, don't wake up and tell myself "today, cars are ephemeral and can drive through me without causing harm." I don't live this way because experiential reality tends to be pretty objective in this regard, and the validity of my senses is similarly consistent.
If your daughter were to fall ill, would you rely on logic or faith in order to remedy her? I would assume that your God could heal her (omnipotent) and would heal her (all-loving), but something tells me you would rationally consider the use of medicine that has empirically been shown to be effective.


*facepalm* have you been reading the thread? or have i been THAT unclear? http://archive.org/...anata04-22-2005 this like will take you to a debate which discusses this very issue, hopefully then you will know where im coming from.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bcingu
Level

Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 847

ReformedRicky wrote:
bcingu wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:

My senses have proved their own utility on a daily basis for several decades


how do you know? you cannot know without using your senses to validate this... viciously circular argumentation.



Forgot about this thread.

It speaks volumes that you have to drift so far away from religion, into Philosophy 101 territory, in order to defend it. Are you telling me that you live your life as though you can't trust your senses? That you live, day to day, as though you live in a truly subjective reality? I, for one, don't wake up and tell myself "today, cars are ephemeral and can drive through me without causing harm." I don't live this way because experiential reality tends to be pretty objective in this regard, and the validity of my senses is similarly consistent.
If your daughter were to fall ill, would you rely on logic or faith in order to remedy her? I would assume that your God could heal her (omnipotent) and would heal her (all-loving), but something tells me you would rationally consider the use of medicine that has empirically been shown to be effective.


*facepalm* have you been reading the thread? or have i been THAT unclear? http://archive.org/...anata04-22-2005 this like will take you to a debate which discusses this very issue, hopefully then you will know where im coming from.


Save your self-flagellation for when you've successfully made a coherent statement. Metaphysical obfuscation secures you a seat at the kids' table.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

JLone
Level 3

Join date: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 2169

bcingu wrote:
Save your self-flagellation for when you've successfully made a coherent statement. Metaphysical obfuscation secures you a seat at the kids' table.

I don't think he deliberately tried to make anything confusing. He is just regurgitating what he has heard/read smarter people say but since he can't digest it himself it comes out in the same "chunks" his mind saved it in. Since you are not asking the exact questions his points were designed to address he is having a tough time arguing with you.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bnkNando
Level

Join date: May 2012
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 78

americaninsweden wrote:
pgtips wrote:
americaninsweden wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
pgtips wrote:
ReformedRicky wrote:
BreStruction wrote:
my faith in science - that what I see is actually there - is as preposterous as faith in eternal life - but we all need something to live for.


I assume by this you are saying that you only believe in what you can see. however, this is a self defeating statement. you are using logic to make that statement, however, you cannot see logic and therefore cannot believe in it.

this is akin to saying you only believe everything is made of marshmallows, but give a non marshmallow explanation.
http://deliveredtothesaints.co...


WELL said, i totally agree with you. I would consider myself an Athiest simply because i do not believe in a God, all these religions have almost forced me to think this way. Of course i cannot be 100% sure there is no higher power so i would say i am 99% Athiest lol .

I think he was getting at the fact that nobody knows what is true. Even Richard Dawkins said himself that he is not 100% atheist as that would be foolish, because he doesnt know, but in all probablity there is a very miniscule chance that god exists*

I would quote what he said but I dont have the book any more. (look up "TheGod Delusion")


you cannot know anything (absolutely) without knowing everything or knowing the person who knows everything.

if the above statement is true, and i think it is, you must have divine revelation to know anything, or else you MUST be a skeptic about EVERYTHING.

Richard Dawkins can't even believe in his own existence without borrowing a Theist's (namely Christian) worldview.



I haven't read Dawkins, i generally don't align with atheism and definitely not with theism. However, I think your concept of knowing is a bit odd. How can you know (truly, absolutely) a person (omnipotent or otherwise) without first having absolute knowledge in your scenario? It's flawed from the inception. Theology and Atheism, equally illogical.


Dawkins is an interesting read. He's quite militantly atheist, which I don't particualy agree with, but he does make valid points none the less. I'd suggest reading at least one of his books.

What I was trying to get at is nobody knows anything on a deeper more profound level.

I'm atheist, to the extent that I really do believe there is no God and this is due to my interest and my limited knowledge in science.

I can say "look science proves this, proves that and also this." but even science doesnt know how the universe began. There is only theories. Just like religion is only a bunch theories, but rather outdated and quite illogical theories.



I think your science vs religion theory is a bit off. Theories in science are tested thousands of times and are essentially true, except that scientists can possibly test in all areas of the universe or in all circumstances. However, you are right that there is that shred of doubt in anything they say. See Einstein and the speed of light and relativity of time and now speed of light is no longer the constant (still under testing). They got some particle to travel faster, everything is fallible in science. However, Religion and its theories have none of that testing. God exists not because there have been 14,000 tests done and he is consistent but because of belief. It's a much much weaker starting point.

I don't bother with trying to know things absolutely or arguing things absolutely. My goal, in the spirit of relativists around the world (Dewey), is trying to obtain the best arguments and facts (using facts loosely) that our society can provide us through science and reason.

I am a firm agnostic, sounds ironic right? I was raised in a very religious household but that has lead me to the belief that the Christian God, in his biblical form, does not exist. However, another higher being's existence wouldn't altogether surprise me.

Sorry for the length and sporadic train of thought.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

vdix
Level

Join date: Sep 2013
Location:
Posts: 5

The problem with science is that every one of its conclusions is relative to a set of constraints, which are also relative. Science gives no absolute truths--only relevant truths. For example, we do not know that electromagnetism is truly a fundamental force in the universe at large.

We just know that it is one of the most fundamental forces we can currently identify and measure. Even measurement is inherently relative and inaccurate because the universe is not a yard stick. There is no "Start Measuring Here" line and there are no absolutes. The meter is based on the speed of light, but how is the speed of light measured? In meters and time. Circular and inexact, but certainly useful.

Empirical evidence is the measurement of effect relative to cause, and where it truly fails is in explaining its own validity, much like religion. The original cause, whatever it may be, cannot itself have a cause, or it is not the original cause. So how can science explain it? It cannot.

Quite simply, it is preposterous to think that science, as we currently understand it, could ever explain the truly fundamental truths of the universe, because it relies wholly on inexact measurements and observations taken within said universe.

I think the safest course of action is look at science as a tool to learn about specific things, and recognize religion as an aspect of mental health (healthy or otherwise) and personal faith/conviction. Science will never explain the universe, and faith will not help us cure cancer. They both have their place in society.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report