STEM is incomplete

[Sarpedon]

Nonsense. Humans have a purpose in mind when they create an automobile. Humans have a purpose in mind when they fashion a hammer. Then the hammer may be used to hit nails, or it may be used to hit someone else in the head. Which one is the “purpose” of the hammer? Obviously neither.

The purpose of the hammer could be to move energy.

Individual circumstances do not matter. The key point is that there is another question besides “how does this work”, or “what is this”. I think you would agree that science cannot answer this “why” or “final cause” question. In that case, what is your basis for deciding whether or not it can be known or should be known?

Keep in mind that purpose does not have to be real in order to address the question. If one could determine that there is no purpose or “final cause”, then that would answer the question.

Morality is an emergent attribute. In can be explained in the terms of sociology, not physics.

In that case, if we change the underlying fabric that it emerges from, can we change morality? For example, if we change the underlying fabric of a water molecule, by taking away the hydrogen, emergent attributes like “wetness” may cease to exist. Can we change morality by changing sociological realities?

Really? Then answer this question for me: “What is heavier, the smell of the color of nine, or the taste of purple?”. If you decline to answer, then are you ducking the question?

No, because I will give my reasons for not answering it. I cannot answer it because nine is not a color, and purple is not something that can be tasted.

No, science cannot answer it, because it is not a valid question. You could “argue” that since science cannot answer a question about the nature of “souls”, therefore science is “incomplete”. Hogwash!

Why is it an invalid question? No, I would not consider science incomplete because it cannot address souls. It is complete in reference to its frame of inquiry. However, because complete science cannot address the question of souls (yes or no), it is not sufficient for addressing all of reality.

It is not circular, because it is not science that confirms them, it is reality that does.

If reality independent of the scientific method confirms them, we don’t need science. We don’t need science to know that plants are green. We don’t need to devise an experiment to see if they are green. What we do need experiments for is things we cannot directly confirm through observation, such as where the green color comes from. In that case, since we cannot directly observe them, they cannot verify the truthfullness of the scientific method.

I wish you would not waste my time with such “answers”. These are included in the legal system for purely secular reasons.

Why are rapes, murders, and incests “secular”, while killing an infant during birth is “religious”? Who does the determination? You?

There is no “binding” morality. Morality can be explained by sociology. It is another emergent attribute.

In that case, we can change morality by changing the underlying social structure. This is both exciting and terrifying. It is exciting because I can do whatever I want if I can change the social fabric, terrifying because other people can do whatever they want to me by changing the social fabric.

 

[Sarpedon]

The purpose of the hammer could be to move energy.

Individual circumstances do not matter. The key point is that there is another question besides “how does this work”, or “what is this”. I think you would agree that science cannot answer this “why” or “final cause” question. In that case, what is your basis for deciding whether or not it can be known or should be known?

Keep in mind that purpose does not have to be real in order to address the question. If one could determine that there is no purpose or “final cause”, then that would answer the question.

In that case, if we change the underlying fabric that it emerges from, can we change morality? For example, if we change the underlying fabric of a water molecule, by taking away the hydrogen, emergent attributes like “wetness” may cease to exist. Can we change morality by changing sociological realities?

No, because I will give my reasons for not answering it. I cannot answer it because nine is not a color, and purple is not something that can be tasted.

Why is it an invalid question? No, I would not consider science incomplete because it cannot address souls. It is complete in reference to its frame of inquiry. However, because complete science cannot address the question of souls (yes or no), it is not sufficient for addressing all of reality.

If reality independent of the scientific method confirms them, we don’t need science. We don’t need science to know that plants are green. We don’t need to devise an experiment to see if they are green. What we do need experiments for is things we cannot directly confirm through observation, such as where the green color comes from. In that case, since we cannot directly observe them, they cannot verify the truthfullness of the scientific method.

Why are rapes, murders, and incests “secular”, while killing an infant during birth is “religious”? Who does the determination? You?

There is no “binding” morality. Morality can be explained by sociology. It is another emergent attribute.

 

[ateista]

How do we know we can correctly apprehend reality? How do we know it happened?

Because we experience it.

There is one basic, unassailable principle: “I exist”. No one, not even the most insane mind can deny that.

The other basic principle is: “the universe (everything outside me) exists”. Some people (solipsists) may attempt to deny that, but as soon as they voice their opinion, they themselves refute it - by actually stating it.

The third basic principle is that our senses correctly represent the actual reality. The denial of this principle would lead to the ludicruous assertion: "we cannot see reality, because we have eyes, we cannot hear reality because we have ears… etc… No doubt, we can misinterpret the signals we receive, but the reality and accuracy of the signals cannot be doubted.

This is the crux of the problem. Atheists say **“I can know reality and do philosophy, so my mind must have evolved that way.” They take a unsupported assumption and make conclusions off of it. ** This works backwards, according to science. They take a statement and assume reality corresponds to it, rather than examining reality and making a statement off of it. Unless you can demonstrate to me that what we are doing on this thread gives true results, we cannot know whether our mind is built that way.

You cannot say “experience proves it, because we survive”, because our perception of experience and “survival” is mediated through the mind, which is in question.

You can’t be serious. It is not in question. Our existence is a given. You cannot say that “maybe” we just “imagine” that we are alive. Yes, the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. If someone believes that putting yellow pebbles under one’s armpit is the way to obtain nutrition, then he will die. You cannot assert that maybe he still “imagines” that he is alive, while in reality he is dead.

Now, I don’t mean to argue for universal skepticism here.

Maybe you don’t “mean to”, but you actually do. Our existence does not need to be “proven”, it is a given. The existence of the external world does not have to be proven, it is also a given. The validity of the senses does not have to be proven, it is also a given. The denial of any of these basic principles is sheer insanity.

I believe that we can apprehend reality correctly. The difference is that I am not constrained by science. I am willing to make the unsubstantiated assumption that we can know reality. Atheists make the same choice, but they tend to only accept things through science. If we both make the same choice, without direct support, we can examine the relative likeliness of each position. One is that God designed our minds that way, the other is that by sheer good luck atoms happened to arrange in that fashion.

Again the argument from “probabilities”. You are not in the position of making such arguments, because you don’t know what you are talking about. This is NOT an insult (nor it is intended to be an insult), it is simply a statement of the facts.

Effectively you say that there is a “threshold” of probabilities (which you don’t understand) and “beyond” that one must assume a supernatural explanation, while “under” that one can (reasonably) assume a natural explanation.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ateista,

I do not agree with you that the accuracy of our perception is simply a “given”. To simply assume something like that is true without question is not very “scientific” (key word).

I realize I may not be very skilled at explaining it. Have you studied Descartes? He deals with this problem in depth, and it is the basis for his theory of knowledge. Plantinga also addresses it, although he approaches it somewhat like I do.

 

[ateista]

The purpose of the hammer could be to move energy.

Individual circumstances do not matter. The key point is that there is another question besides “how does this work”, or “what is this”. I think you would agree that science cannot answer this “why” or “final cause” question. In that case, what is your basis for deciding whether or not it can be known or should be known?

Keep in mind that purpose does not have to be real in order to address the question. If one could determine that there is no purpose or “final cause”, then that would answer the question.

There is no final purpose; there is no purpose at all. Thinking beings, humans can assign a purpose (and they do) but in the absence of such beings there is no “purpose”. You speak of “manufactured” goods. Obviously they are created by someone, with a purpose in mind. What is the purpose of the AIDS virus? To cut down on the number of homosexuals? (Some fundamentalists assert so, though Catholics usually do not.)

In that case, if we change the underlying fabric that it emerges from, can we change morality? For example, if we change the underlying fabric of a water molecule, by taking away the hydrogen, emergent attributes like “wetness” may cease to exist. Can we change morality by changing sociological realities?

Of course we can. A current example is the plane crash in the Andes in the 1970’s. Some people survived and in order to gain sustenance they HAD to resort to cannibalism. Current moral standards hold cannibalism as immoral. But no one admonished the survivors for their actions. People understand that need can break the rules. If someone is about to starve and steals a piece of bread, most people will see this act as acceptable. There is a middle ground between “moral” and “immoral” behavior, the huge land of “amoral” activities.

No, because I will give my reasons for not answering it. I cannot answer it because nine is not a color, and purple is not something that can be tasted.

Excellent. Just as I say that “purpose” in the absence of purposeful beings is nonsensical. And that the existence of purposeful beings does not lend “purpose” to natural (non-manufactured) things.

Why is it an invalid question? No, I would not consider science incomplete because it cannot address souls. It is complete in reference to its frame of inquiry. However, because complete science cannot address the question of souls (yes or no), it is not sufficient for addressing all of reality.

And your assumption that “souls” are part of the reality is just an opinion.

Why are rapes, murders, and incests “secular”, while killing an infant during birth is “religious”? Who does the determination? You?

No, you do. Not actually “religious”, rather Christian. Not all religions assert that abortion or contraception is “sinful”, only Christianity does.

In that case, we can change morality by changing the underlying social structure. This is both exciting and terrifying. It is exciting because I can do whatever I want if I can change the social fabric, terrifying because other people can do whatever they want to me by changing the social fabric.

Don’t be scared. The social fabric is not so easy to change. It has a huge inertia. But it does change, and things which were moral once upon a time are immoral today (slavery) and things which were immoral (taxation: “Vitam and sanguinem, sed avenam non!”) are quite acceptable today. Up until 1905 in the US the consumption of cocaine, morphine and heroin was completely acceptable and legal. Today it is not.

Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society in a specific time, which prescribe and proscribe the socially acceptable behavior. (Some of these are reflected in laws, other are not. Conversely, some laws reflect moral standards, other do not.)

 

[ateista]

I do not agree with you that the accuracy of our perception is simply a “given”. To simply assume something like that is true without question is not very “scientific” (key word).

How do you plan to argue against it? What kind of arguments can you bring up that the senses are fundamentally incorrect? What else are you going to use, but the senses?

You may say that the fundamental principle that “I exist” is non-scientific, because it cannot be verified in a scientific fashin. Of course not. It does not have to substantiated. In every system there are a few basic principles, which form the foundation of everything else. They cannot and need not be substantiated. They are axiomatically accepted.

 

[tobias]

The case has been made time and again, including in this thread that concepts such as unicorns, leprichans, faries, souls, God, are just imaginations of the human mind. Yes the mind can picture a horn on a horse and therefore concepttualize a unicorn, or picture a small hominid form with wings like an insect and coceptualize a farie, but from what portion of STEM has the intellect conceptualized the soul, spirits, God? If in fact the intellect is merely a component of the brain, a mere attribute which emerged from survival instinct, it would not have the capacity to conceptualize that which is outside of its experience.

The Idea that intellect emerged in man as a process of natural selection is tied to the idea that primitive man imagined deities to explain natural phenomina. If this is accurate, then this emergent trait betrayed man. An attribute of natural selection which made a being mispercieve his environment? But the question I have remains; how did primitive humans conceptualize immaterial realities?
It is one thing to conceptualize gods as manipulations of known physical realities, it is quite another to conceptualize a God that has no physical attributes or constraints.

To say man has just imagined immaterial realities would mean man created (ex nihilo) immaterial realities. For no part can be associated with STEM and lies only in the mind of man.

 

[ateista]

The case has been made time and again, including in this thread that concepts such as unicorns, leprichans, faries, souls, God, are just imaginations of the human mind. Yes the mind can picture a horn on a horse and therefore concepttualize a unicorn, or picture a small hominid form with wings like an insect and coceptualize a farie, but from what portion of STEM has the intellect conceptualized the soul, spirits, God? If in fact the intellect is merely a component of the brain, a mere attribute which emerged from survival instinct, it would not have the capacity to conceptualize that which is outside of its experience.

The Idea that intellect emerged in man as a process of natural selection is tied to the idea that primitive man imagined deities to explain natural phenomina. If this is accurate, then this emergent trait betrayed man. An attribute of natural selection which made a being mispercieve his environment? But the question I have remains; how did primitive humans conceptualize immaterial realities?
It is one thing to conceptualize gods as manipulations of known physical realities, it is quite another to conceptualize a God that has no physical attributes or constraints.

To say man has just imagined immaterial realities would mean man created (ex nihilo) immaterial realities. For no part can be associated with STEM and lies only in the mind of man.

That is a good question. Here is my explanation: We all dream, and sometimes very vividly. Our dreams sometimes can be very life-like. We remember some of those dreams after we wake up.

Now the primitve cave men had no idea about the nature of dreams, that dreams are the way for the brain to rest. They dreamed about the deceased loved ones, in their dreams they talked to them. For them it was another “reality”. From this misconception they “concluded” that there must be “something”, a soul or a spirit which survives the physical death.

That is how the concept of souls emerged. The lack of knowledge of the chemistry in the brain, the “explanation” which seemed plausible. This misconception is still with us. A few hundred thousand years of “indoctrination” is not something that can be dropped very easily.

Moreover, it is not a fully useless trait. Sure gods are imaginary, but the effect of such thoughts can provide some very useful survival tools. Belonging to a community is essential. Sticking together with your peers (soul-mates?) has a very strong survival value.

I am not sure, if we (humanity as a whole) are ready to face reality as is. Many people want the blanket of Linus (Peanuts) and want that strong Father figure. It is quite hard to assume full responsibilty for your life.

 

[Sarpedon]

This thread is wandering slightly, so I would like to restate my points:

1. What is the justification for the claim that science and observation are the only way to reach knowledge? There are several different questions that can be asked about reality. We can ask what, how, where, when, and why.

Where and when usually can be answered by referencing documents or other means (history)

What and how can usually be answered by observations or experimentation (science).

Why, (final cause, purpose) usually can be answered by making inferences from observations or revelations, and using logic in abstraction (philosophy, theology). This last bit of knowledge is frequently contested.

It is not necessary to address whether or not things have purpose itself. The important thing is how we would go about answering the question, either by affirming it, denying it, or by declaring the question (not the answer) illegitimate.

Typically, atheists only accept the first four questions, and deny the validity of the last. Thus, they declare the question illegitimate. What is the basis for this declaration? Why can we answer the first four questions, but not the last?

It seems to me that atheists should be able to provide a reason for excluding the “why” question.

Of course, the reason must be consistent with their premise. Using non-observational and non-experimental reasons is not consistent with their stated position that we can only know things through these means (and history).

 

[tobias]

That is a good question. Here is my explanation: We all dream, and sometimes very vividly. Our dreams sometimes can be very life-like. We remember some of those dreams after we wake up.

Now the primitve cave men had no idea about the nature of dreams, that dreams are the way for the brain to rest. They dreamed about the deceased loved ones, in their dreams they talked to them. For them it was another “reality”. From this misconception they “concluded” that there must be “something”, a soul or a spirit which survives the physical death.

That is how the concept of souls emerged. The lack of knowledge of the chemistry in the brain, the “explanation” which seemed plausible. This misconception is still with us. A few hundred thousand years of “indoctrination” is not something that can be dropped very easily.

Moreover, it is not a fully useless trait. Sure gods are imaginary, but the effect of such thoughts can provide some very useful survival tools. Belonging to a community is essential. Sticking together with your peers (soul-mates?) has a very strong survival value.

I am not sure, if we (humanity as a whole) are ready to face reality as is. Many people want the blanket of Linus (Peanuts) and want that strong Father figure. It is quite hard to assume full responsibilty for your life.

Your explanation seems rational enough, however falls short. All over the world, wherever man was, soul was part of the human consciousness as well as the conection between God or percieved gods, soul and an afterlife. I am unaware of any religions of the past that do not make the connection. I’m aware of none that hold belief in soul but no god or god conciousness and afterlife. None that hold there is a god, but no soul or afterlife. Very peculiar if this is just imaginings, that such symmetry should exist. Sure you might point to variance of understanding as explanation, but it would not explain none dropped immaterial concepts.

I think we might be hard pressed to think of the human sacrifice of ancient religions as a Linus blanket. In fact most pagan gods were held to be easily angered and scornful.

Even as an athiest you are able to conceptualize the immaterial and your denial in no way hinders your ability to conceptualize what is not part os STEM.
There are no other thought processes, conceptualizations or ideas that we have that are not dependant on the our sense percieved knowledge.

Now if in fact our brain and mind are one and the same, this or any other function of brain should be able to be mapped universally by neuroligists.
But before brain surgery can be performed, each person’s brain has to be mapped individually, because the functions of the brain are located in diferent areas for each individual.
It is actually possible to perform a hemispherectomy without affecting the mind, which leads me to believe mind and brain are not one and the same.
. .

 

[Sarpedon]

1. I cannot debate the argument about the accuracy of sense perception and likelihood of the brain forming out of blind natural forces, because you do not even accept the question about the accuracy of the mind as a valid question.

I don’t think I can say much more than I already have. I would suggest studying Descartes, because this question is the basis for his main life’s work. In fact, most if not all of the epistomological philosophers have dealt with this question in some form or another. After all, if knowing things was as simple as looking in front of you, there would be little or nothing for epistomologists to study!

 

[Sarpedon]

How does the mind generate things that are not part of STEM in sleep? Whether a person is awake or asleep is irrelevant… the key point is that the mind is creating non-STEM things ex nihilo, without experience of that thing, so how is this possible?

NOTE: I am writing this off the top of my head, so I am not necessarily going to stand by it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Of course we can. A current example is the plane crash in the Andes in the 1970’s. Some people survived and in order to gain sustenance they HAD to resort to cannibalism. Current moral standards hold cannibalism as immoral. But no one admonished the survivors for their actions. People understand that need can break the rules. If someone is about to starve and steals a piece of bread, most people will see this act as acceptable. There is a middle ground between “moral” and “immoral” behavior, the huge land of “amoral” activities.

Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society in a specific time, which prescribe and proscribe the socially acceptable behavior. (Some of these are reflected in laws, other are not. Conversely, some laws reflect moral standards, other do not.)

If I understand you right, there is no objectively immoral or moral behavior. Thus, every action is amoral, but society chooses to accept or condemn some of them.

Are you serious? Popular consensus makes right? Slavery was moral back when it was socially acceptable? What about German societal disgust for Jews in WW2? What about puritan societies burning innocent people as witches? What about French revolutionaries executing innocent people with the backing of huge mobs?

I’m suprised that you are willing to say this, for often atheists try to waffle their way through this by saying that “evolution demands certain things” which is ludicrus (inanimate natural processes have no desires or requirments).

 

[ateista]

This thread is wandering slightly, so I would like to restate my points:

1. What is the justification for the claim that science and observation are the only way to reach knowledge?

Well, what is knowledge? Knowledge is information about something. It can be shallow or in depth, based upon the details we seek out. Knowledge presupposes that the entity in question can be observed, studied, measured. It presupposes that from this empirical observation we can draw inferences, we can make predictions, and we can test our predictions against reality.

There are several different questions that can be asked about reality. We can ask what, how, where, when, and why.

Yes, those questions can be asked. Whether they can be answered is different matter.

Where and when usually can be answered by referencing documents or other means (history)

Or observation, yes.

What and how can usually be answered by observations or experimentation (science).

Yes.

Why, (final cause, purpose) usually can be answered by making inferences from observations or revelations, and using logic in abstraction (philosophy, theology). This last bit of knowledge is frequently contested.

The question of “why” in the sense you posited presupposes some conscious entity who “derives” or assigns a purpose. There is no purpose without some purposeful being.

Now since you believe in God, who is a purposeful being, the question of “why” is legitimate - for you. But since I do not believe in God, the question can be meaningless for me. Sure if examine a human activity, then we can ask - legitimately - what was the purpose of that activity?

It is not necessary to address whether or not things have purpose itself. The important thing is how we would go about answering the question, either by affirming it, denying it, or by declaring the question (not the answer) illegitimate.

We cannot go on and asnwer this question in general, only in a well-defined particular. If there is a purposeful being and we try to find out the purpose of his activity, then we can use observation and science to find it out.

Typically, atheists only accept the first four questions, and deny the validity of the last. Thus, they declare the question illegitimate. What is the basis for this declaration? Why can we answer the first four questions, but not the last?

It seems to me that atheists should be able to provide a reason for excluding the “why” question.

Of course, the reason must be consistent with their premise. Using non-observational and non-experimental reasons is not consistent with their stated position that we can only know things through these means (and history).

Your last assertion is incorrect. Science deals inductive problems. Logic and reason are used as tools. Logic - in and by itself - is a deductive branch of science, based upon axioms or postulates.

The reason that atheists exclude the “why” in the sense you posited is that atheists do not believe in an ever-present God. Your basic “axiom” or postulate (God’s existence) is rejected on account of lack of sufficient evidence.

 

[ateista]

Your explanation seems rational enough, however falls short. All over the world, wherever man was, soul was part of the human consciousness as well as the conection between God or percieved gods, soul and an afterlife. I am unaware of any religions of the past that do not make the connection. I’m aware of none that hold belief in soul but no god or god conciousness and afterlife. None that hold there is a god, but no soul or afterlife. Very peculiar if this is just imaginings, that such symmetry should exist. Sure you might point to variance of understanding as explanation, but it would not explain none dropped immaterial concepts.

I think they go hand-in-hand. You agreed that my explanation is plausible for the assumption of souls. It is also plausible for the assumption of afterlife.

You stated - correctly - that primitive people envisioned all sorts of gods, who needed to be appeased. The Neanderthal paintings are supposed to be ancient religious rituals.

The god-of-the-gaps is the oldest assumption - whatever we cannot explain (and those ancient people could explain hardly anything) was attributed to one god or another.

Even as an athiest you are able to conceptualize the immaterial and your denial in no way hinders your ability to conceptualize what is not part os STEM.

Sure thing.

There are no other thought processes, conceptualizations or ideas that we have that are not dependant on the our sense percieved knowledge.

Only in a very wide sense. We can imagine fire-breathing dragons, though we know that life and fire are pretty much mutually exculsive. We can imagine all sorts of impossible beings, like a married bachelor, or a 4-sided triangle. We cannot visualize these, of course, but to be able to visualize something is not necessary. We can imagine n-dimensional space and use this as a mathematical tool (a very useful at that) but we cannot visualize it.

Now if in fact our brain and mind are one and the same, this or any other function of brain should be able to be mapped universally by neuroligists.

Not really. The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind is the activity of the brain, just like the activity of the hands is pointing, or hitting or caressing or manipluating something, or many other activities. These activities cannot be mapped to the muscles and the tendons - even though they are the underlying physical infrastructure which makes these activities possible.

But before brain surgery can be performed, each person’s brain has to be mapped individually, because the functions of the brain are located in diferent areas for each individual.

That is hardly surprising, given that the areas of the brain are highly susceptible to individual development.

It is actually possible to perform a hemispherectomy without affecting the mind, which leads me to believe mind and brain are not one and the same.

Not to my knowledge - which is admittedly small. As far as I know, if you separate the two halves of the brain, one will be the dominant part, and the other one may sometimes overtake control. The two halves will exhibit different personalities.

 

[ateista]

If I understand you right, there is no objectively immoral or moral behavior. Thus, every action is amoral, but society chooses to accept or condemn some of them.

Sure thing. The actual society will choose which kind of behavior is accepted and which one is rejected. But this is an objective criterion, though not an absolute one.

Are you serious? Popular consensus makes right?

The word “right” is ambiguous. Soceity grants “rights” - in the sense that the exercising of a “right” carries no repercussions. “Right” as a synonym for “decent”, acceptable or moral is the evaluation of the society.

Mind you, what one society considers “acceptable” or “moral” will be vehemently rejected by another one. The ancient Aztecs (for example) considered the bloody butchering of selected individuals as “moral”, even the victims themselves considered it an honor to be selected. Today we consider such practices abhorrent, but they did not.

Slavery was moral back when it was socially acceptable?

They considered it as “moral” and used the Bible as justification. We see it otherwise.

What about German societal disgust for Jews in WW2?

Interestingly enough most Germans rejected it. A few forced their bigotry on the rest, who were intimidated to express their disagreement.

What about puritan societies burning innocent people as witches? What about French revolutionaries executing innocent people with the backing of huge mobs?

SSDD. (Same “stuff”, different day - just in case you happen not to be familiar with the phrase). We are different, our norms are different. But our norms (just as theirs) is contingent upon the norms we learned as children, during our formative years, when we had no cognitive powers to discriminate. We are all brainwashed into what we are.

I’m suprised that you are willing to say this, for often atheists try to waffle their way through this by saying that “evolution demands certain things” which is ludicrus (inanimate natural processes have no desires or requirments).

Indeed. The phrase “demads” here is just a figure of speech.

Though if you agree that inanimate natural processes do not have desires or requirements (and I wholly agree with you), then why do you try to assign a “purpose” to the same inanimate objects or processes? Because that is precisely what you do when you ask for the “why”?

 

[Sarpedon]

The reason that atheists exclude the “why” in the sense you posited is that atheists do not believe in an ever-present God. Your basic “axiom” or postulate (God’s existence) is rejected on account of lack of sufficient evidence.

And thus it is impossible to demonstrate God to you. You start with the presumption that God does not exist, and thus empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge. Once you have concluded that empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge, you justify your lack of belief in God, because He lacks your empirical credentials.

You set yourself up for atheism in the first place by limiting what you will accept as knowledge, including that which can lead you to God.

I cannot demonstrate God to you because you will demand empirical proof for His existence. You require empirical proof for His existence because God does not exist in the first place, and thus empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge.

Can you give me a reason to believe empiricism is the only way to valid knowledge without referencing the God question?

 

[Sarpedon]

Though if you agree that inanimate natural processes do not have desires or requirements (and I wholly agree with you), then why do you try to assign a “purpose” to the same inanimate objects or processes? Because that is precisely what you do when you ask for the “why”?

Machines have a purpose (in reference to man), even though they have no desires.

Whether or not things have a purpose is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the question of purpose is a real question. I am asking whether atheists can give a reason for dismissing the question (not the answer) that does not involve axiomic assumptions of God’s non-existence or non-relevance.

 

[Sarpedon]

In regards to morality, I don’t think I can say much more to you. If you maintain that in some cases things like slavery or killing innocent people is acceptable and moral, there’s not much I can say to that.

One thing’s for sure- I am really glad you do not know my name or where I live.

 

[ateista]

And thus it is impossible to demonstrate God to you. You start with the presumption that God does not exist, and thus empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge. Once you have concluded that empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge, you justify your lack of belief in God, because He lacks your empirical credentials.

You set yourself up for atheism in the first place by limiting what you will accept as knowledge, including that which can lead you to God.

I cannot demonstrate God to you because you will demand empirical proof for His existence. You require empirical proof for His existence because God does not exist in the first place, and thus empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge.

You assign to me a somewhat “sinister” status. Don’t forget, I used to be a believer, who stopped believing because I found the concept of a God - much less a benevolent God - unsupported. I did not “choose” empiricism out of “spite”. As a matter of fact, I fought this urge. I tried to use a different standard and tried to find a ground to reject “sordid materialism”. I failed.

Can you give me a reason to believe empiricism is the only way to valid knowledge without referencing the God question?

I don’t know of any other valid method.

Suppose you would ask me one million of “yes-no” questions. Unbeknownst to you, I would flip a coin every time, and when the coin shows heads, I would answer “yes”, and when the coin shows “tails”, I would answer “no”. The result would be approximately 500 correct answers and 500 incorrect ones. Would you agree that flipping coins is a valid epistemological method to glean information? I would hope not.

Empiricism gives us an **overwhelming evidence **of being correct. What is the alternative? “Faith”? The uncritical acceptance of a self-proclaimed “authority”? We all agree that humans are fallible. Why should I accept the opinion of anyone, who cannot demonstrate that his opinion is borne out by facts?

I am just as skeptical to claims of science as I am to claims of “supernatural”. I do not create a higher standard and judge supernatural claims differently from natural ones. What else can you expect from me? Lowering my standards when it comes to “supernatural” claims? Why should I do that?