The demand for evidence for the existence of God

[Touchstone]

Hello, TS:

Rather, some people are better than others (in the moral sense).

God bless,
jd

Yes, don’t disagree with that, but don’t see it as a ‘rather’, but a kind of restatement. Popes are human, and moral mileage varies from human to human.

-TS

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Science is philosophy. -TS

That isn’t what the Skeptics Dictionary states. skepdic.com/tiscience.html

Touchstone, lol, you are a fun chap of sorts! You really have a way of tickling my mind.

Hey, my puppy Grace put on 10 lbs. in 8 days. She is a real cutie that is learning tricks now. She has so much energy, I’m exhausted. She may out live me.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, don’t disagree with that, but don’t see it as a ‘rather’, but a kind of restatement. Popes are human, and moral mileage varies from human to human.

-TS

TS:

Quite true.

God bless,
jd

 

[Pieman333272]

I hadnt heard of this guy, but Ive just looked him up, read his proof, then read a comprehensive refutation of it.

Sarah x

That’s OK, I’m not here to debate it, I’ve read some tough critiques of it myself and it isn’t the only ontological argument I subscribe to.

 

[levinas12]

I hadnt heard of this guy, but Ive just looked him up, read his proof, then read a comprehensive refutation of it.

Sarah x

What do you think of the intelligent design movement? Fine tuning of cosmological constants, the need for “information” in the first cell, etc.?

 

[Pieman333272]

Science is philosophy. But I said above, no need to hold to a threshold as high as science to make the point – the demonstration is not forthcoming, the evidence is not available, no tests avail. You can lower the bar way down to very casual non-scientific terms, and faith is still what gets you there, to belief. And by the teachings of your own faith!].

If you have a proof for the existence of God, don’t waste your time here, you should be famous by Friday! Let the world know! That would be big news.

But please don’t tell me you are getting the term “Proof for God’s existence” as the proof itself, like saying it poofs something into existence. A “proof of God’s existence” is a proposed argument. It may point to what it supposes is evidence that counts as “proof”, but supposing that the argument is the proof itself confuses two very different senses of proof. A “geometric proof” admits of no evidence, for example. “Proof of guilt” is another meaning for the word. Either your confusing these, or someone is pulling your leg.

Or you really should be famous by Friday!
-TS

Science is a branch of philosophy. It holds some ideas of philosophy but under much more rigorous and strict methodology and with different purposes. Sadly, philosophy in and of itself is becoming more and more limited to naturalism and materialism - not because these positions are true but because more people who subscribe to these positions decide, for whatever reason, to be philosophers.

I define a proof of God’s existence as follows:
Any ontological or philosophical argument or case where it is demonstrated that a maximally great being exists or is necessary in this world. Equating the being to a specific form of theism - say, Christianity - is IMHO beyond the scope of this style of argument.

I borrow the term “proof” to describe this from other theist philosophers, as the demonstration of the existence or absolute necessity of a maximally great being would be a proof, philosophically.

Let me add that I quite often have trouble actually conveying the arguments I try to advance. It’s not that I don’t understand or know them, or even can’t defend them, it’s just that, for whatever reason, I have a tendency to do a bad job of conveying an argument I’m trying to make.

 

[atheistgirl]

Hello, Sarah:

Well, not all of them. And, really, if you haven’t studied the facts of the Inquisition, or the Crusades, I would respectfully request you do so. But, ‘yes’ for the rest.

God bless,
jd

Ive read a bit about them - they sprung to mind in relation to your point that if people were truely christian in the truest sense, there would be no need even for laws - regardless of their purpose or motive they resulted in a great many deaths. Deaths to address heresies, resettle land, root out unbelievers. As I read what you wrote, it all sounded dys-religious to me as you described it.

Sarah x

 

[Touchstone]

Science is a branch of philosophy. It holds some ideas of philosophy but under much more rigorous and strict methodology and with different purposes. Sadly, philosophy in and of itself is becoming more and more limited to naturalism and materialism - not because these positions are true but because more people who subscribe to these positions decide, for whatever reason, to be philosophers.

Wouldn’t this be problematic for theism, too, then? Back when it wasn’t cool – or safe – to be an unbeliever, lots of theists decided, for whatever reason, to be philosophers, no?

I define a proof of God’s existence as follows:
Any ontological or philosophical argument or case where it is demonstrated that a maximally great being exists or is necessary in this world. Equating the being to a specific form of theism - say, Christianity - is IMHO beyond the scope of this style of argument.

I borrow the term “proof” to describe this from other theist philosophers, as the demonstration of the existence or absolute necessity of a maximally great being would be a proof, philosophically.

Understand.

Let me add that I quite often have trouble actually conveying the arguments I try to advance. It’s not that I don’t understand or know them, or even can’t defend them, it’s just that, for whatever reason, I have a tendency to do a bad job of conveying an argument I’m trying to make.

I definitely can identify with that struggle.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

That isn’t what the Skeptics Dictionary states. skepdic.com/tiscience.html

Hmmm. That link I don’t understand to be at odds with “science is philosophy”. Until about the time of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, science wasn’t “science” but “natural philosophy”.

Touchstone, lol, you are a fun chap of sorts! You really have a way of tickling my mind.

Ahh, you must be new here, but thank you. That sensation will wear off quickly and strike you as something between fingernails on a chalkboard and having a bag full of rabid rodents put over your head and tied around your neck. Just observing empirically, here.

Hey, my puppy Grace put on 10 lbs. in 8 days. She is a real cutie that is learning tricks now. She has so much energy, I’m exhausted. She may out live me.

I have twin 4 year old boys. I’m presently thinking how we might hook them up to a turbine or something of the sort and I could make some coin selling energy back to the grid. It tires me ought just to watch 'em, some times.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

Ive read a bit about them - they sprung to mind in relation to your point that if people were truely christian in the truest sense, there would be no need even for laws - regardless of their purpose or motive they resulted in a great many deaths. Deaths to address heresies, resettle land, root out unbelievers. As I read what you wrote, it all sounded dys-religious to me as you described it.

Sarah x

Sarah:

A bit may not be enough. Who really committed the heinous acts of the so-called Inquisition? What really was the purpose of the Crusades? Remember, there really are people in this world who are not true Christians, yet call themselves such.

God bless,
jd

 

[hecd2]

Sarah:

A bit may not be enough. Who really committed the heinous acts of the so-called Inquisition? What really was the purpose of the Crusades? Remember, there really are people in this world who are not true Christians, yet call themselves such.

God bless,
jd

Hmm - isn’t this the no true Scotsman argument?

Alec

 

[atheistgirl]

What do you think of the intelligent design movement? Fine tuning of cosmological constants, the need for “information” in the first cell, etc.?

I dont buy into it. The work being done on the cell and evolutionary biology discredits it. That is not to say science has all the answers. It doesnt, and when done properly raises more questions than answers. But that’s a good thing. There’s no need for ID in the equation.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

Hmm - isn’t this the no true Scotsman argument?

Alec

Argumentative, my Dear Chap.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I dont buy into it. The work being done on the cell and evolutionary biology discredits it. That is not to say science has all the answers. It doesnt, and when done properly raises more questions than answers. But that’s a good thing. There’s no need for ID in the equation.

Sarah x

Sarah:

Do you know what “naked assertion” means? How many do you find in your statement above? And, yes I know we Catholics make them too, but, two wrongs, etc. . . .

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah:

Do you know what “naked assertion” means? How many do you find in your statement above? And, yes I know we Catholics make them too, but, two wrongs, etc. . . .

God bless,
jd

Ok. Well let me say I have more confidence and belief in science finds answers eventually, as our understanding goes from strength to strength, than in the *probability *of a god existing that provided the impetus, fills the gaps or tweeks the design.
But like a true and unabashed atheist, I would change my belief in a heartbeat if evidence could be shown for the existence of God.

Sarah x

 

[hecd2]

Argumentative, my Dear Chap.

God bless,
jd

So it is? No ill can ever be done by a Christian because no true Christian can ever do ill. Don’t you find that just a tad unsatisfying? I am more than happy, as I said up thread, to acknowledge that Christian belief has motivated many wonderfully positive individual acts and social movements and still do so. But that does not mean that the interpretation of Christian beliefs has not led to some very ill acts and movements (and that includes interpretations which were widespread in the leadership and the laity of the Church at many historical times).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

LogisticsBranch;7570450:

Touchstone;7570339:

Science is philosophy. TS

That isn’t what the Skeptics Dictionary states. skepdic.com/tiscience.html
Hmmm. That link I don’t understand to be at odds with “science is philosophy”. Until about the time of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, science wasn’t “science” but “natural philosophy”.

Don’t skate backwards. The American Association for the Advancement of Science isn’t philosophy. sciencemag.org/ I don’t think the peer-reviewed scientific articles presented are philosophy.

Ahh, you must be new here, but thank you. That sensation will wear off quickly and strike you as something between fingernails on a chalkboard and having a bag full of rabid rodents put over your head and tied around your neck. Just observing empirically, here.

I have no fingernails because I had to clip them off because of my puppy chewing my fingers. Your observation just flew out the window.

I have twin 4 year old boys. I’m presently thinking how we might hook them up to a turbine or something of the sort and I could make some coin selling energy back to the grid. It tires me ought just to watch 'em, some times.

-TS

Cute idea. I’ve tied my pup Gracie to a wagon with rocks and planted pots. Perhaps in 6 months she can tow kids. If your kids whine like she does then forget it!

Take care. She is whining right now. Little cries. She is quite. Probably eating the rug.

 

[JDaniel]

So it is? No ill can ever be done by a Christian because no true Christian can ever do ill. Don’t you find that just a tad unsatisfying? I am more than happy, as I said up thread, to acknowledge that Christian belief has motivated many wonderfully positive individual acts and social movements and still do so. But that does not mean that the interpretation of Christian beliefs has not led to some very ill acts and movements (and that includes interpretations which were widespread in the leadership and the laity of the Church at many historical times).

Alec

Alec:

Please seat yourself, as I am about to do the unexplainable: I am going to agree with you. At least, to a major extent. Think it through: a Christian cannot do evil, except by hook or crook he does not know he’s doing it. But, genocide, war, vile imprisonment, racialism, communism, fascism, and others, cannot not be known. They originate from the pinnacles of the basest of man’s wretchedness. They are well known to all men, therefore, only a dys-Christian can possibly actualize them.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ok. Well let me say I have more confidence and belief in science finds answers eventually, as our understanding goes from strength to strength, than in the *probability *of a god existing that provided the impetus, fills the gaps or tweeks the design.
But like a true and unabashed atheist, I would change my belief in a heartbeat if evidence could be shown for the existence of God.

Sarah x

Sarah:

I was an atheist once.

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

They are well known to all men, therefore, only a dys-Christian can possibly actualize them.

God bless,
jd

So are you saying the popes of old who led and financed crusades were dys-christians, not to mention great military leaders who subsequently became saints
(disclaimer - the same logic would obviously apply to other christian denominations and not just catholicism)

Sarah x