What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[ManOnFire]

No one has ever seen an electron. We rely on the relatively feeble sensitivity and specificity of the latest scientific instruments to tell us that “if we do this, then that will happen, which will light our homes and light our computer screens.” Yet, somehow, others are happy to watch their computers without REALLY witnessing proof of why they light up.

And what of those chronic pain patients? How do we really know they’re in pain? There’s no way to tell for sure. Same with the blind. The world has certainly seen it’s share of con artists in these matters. Should we demand proof and deny treatment and care for them until they provide irrefutable scientific evidence of their condition?

Many intellectuals have developed egomanias because they know a little. Science and numbers have Truths, are intellectually stimulating, and emotionless, unlike human relationships where one needs to place others ahead of self at times. Academia is the way to feel self-important, without the emotional cost and risk of disappointment. There is little time to humble oneself to give one’s life to others in the false god of academia. In many ways, academia is easier than raising kids. Ironically, many intellectuals are weeding themselves out of the gene pool because they are “too smart” to humble themselves to take the chance of being disappointed or hurt by others, especially kids. There’s no long term future in this type of lifestyle. The future history of the world is more affected by those who are humble enough and brave enough to try, and fail, at taking care of others.

 

[The_Exodus]

Its also worth noting that i have already agreed that two assumption have to made, and why to we make these assumptions, well to quote thunderf00t “because of the benefits it brings mankind”.

Can you please tell me what are the “benefits” that mankind need?

If it was up to people like you would would all still be sitting in huts pondering the absurd. Thanks to science we have, food, modern medicine, TV’s, cars, computers, planes, etc etc. When it comes to understanding the universe Science has NO RIVAL.

Unless you seriously think this list answers that question? Why are these things beneficial? Why not try to get more to the root of what these benefits are - i.e. do you mean the happiness of people? Well, what is that? Perhaps you are not aware that this is a PHILOSOPHICAL question.

All questions dealing with meaning - i.e. “benefits” - are outside the scope of science. Why can you not comprehend this?

It’s funny that science has “no rival” and yet it cannot even answer this basic question - what is happiness, where does it come from?

And did you really put TV in the list? Are you serious?

 

[1holycatholic]

There is no anything wilth out philosophy, there is no philosophy without people, there is no people without DNA, there is no DNA without stars. Whats your point?

Science stands on its own merrits, it is science that had revealed the truth of the cosmos, not philosophy, not religon. Or you do still wonder if you are a brain in a jar, do you still think the world is 6000 years old and women were made from a man’s rib? :coffeeread:

What are the metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific method?

 

[AntiTheist]

And what of those chronic pain patients? How do we really know they’re in pain? There’s no way to tell for sure. Same with the blind. The world has certainly seen it’s share of con artists in these matters. Should we demand proof and deny treatment and care for them until they provide irrefutable scientific evidence of their condition?

Well, first of all, doctors who provide care for people who are in chronic pain or who are blind don’t simply take their word for it. If a person is blind, for example, there is almost certainly a problem with the optic nerves, and there are various ways to test for the condition. Doctors don’t just take people’s word for serious illnesses. You can’t just walk into a doctor’s office and declare, “I’m blind – give me drugs!” and expect him to take you at your word.

But more to the point, in daily life, we certainly do take people at their word when they make ordinary claims. “I don’t feel well today,” or “I’m tired,” or “I’m mad,” or “I love you,” are all statements about an inner state that require us to trust the speaker. Any of those statements, after all, could be lies. Generally, however, we have no problem taking people at their word, especially when we think they have no reason to lie. Those are all ordinary claims, so we generally do accept them as a matter of convenience. If we later discover evidence that contradicts the claim (e.g. someone who claims to be “sick” who goes dancing later that day or someone who claims to “love” his wife who is also beating her up), we begin to question the claim.

All of this has nothing to do with evaluating extraordinary claims about the world. Just because I’m willing to take someone at his word when he says something ordinary like, “I don’t feel well today” doesn’t mean that I’m also going to accept extraordinary claims about the world, such as, “There is a god who created the universe” on the same basis.

The claims are not even in the same ballpark. It’s the extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

In many ways, academia is easier than raising kids. Ironically, many intellectuals are weeding themselves out of the gene pool because they are “too smart” to humble themselves to take the chance of being disappointed or hurt by others, especially kids. There’s no long term future in this type of lifestyle. The future history of the world is more affected by those who are humble enough and brave enough to try, and fail, at taking care of others.

This is such a massive overgeneralization that it’s not even remotely helpful. I know plenty of academics with kids, and I know plenty of non-academics who have chosen not to procreate. At any rate, this point is totally unconnected to the rest of your argument, which, as I’ve demonstrated, doesn’t hold water to begin with.

 

[R_Daneel]

What are the metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific method?

1. The external reality exists.
2. It’s laws are uniform.
3. Our senses (and their extentions) deliver accurate information about it.

These form the basis of the few steps of the scientific method:

1. Observation.
2. Hypothesis forming.
3. Making predictions.
4. Verifying the results of our predictions.

Nothing esoteric, really. And I am pretty sure you already knew that.

 

[AlbertBall]

Unless you seriously think this list answers that question? Why are these things beneficial? Why not try to get more to the root of what these benefits are - i.e. do you mean the happiness of people? Well, what is that? Perhaps you are not aware that this is a PHILOSOPHICAL question.

All questions dealing with meaning - i.e. “benefits” - are outside the scope of science. Why can you not comprehend this?

It’s funny that science has “no rival” and yet it cannot even answer this basic question - what is happiness, where does it come from?

And did you really put TV in the list? Are you serious?

Of course i put TV on the list? Do you realise the benefit that TVs bring to society? Are YOU serious?

The benefits are on many levels. Do you really want me to “justify” each one? This is why i have no time for philosophy, it makes people ask absurd questions like “is stopping suffering a ‘good’ thing?”. OF COURSE ITS A GOOD THING, now why not spend you time pondering things that will actually have practical benefits for mankind?

Tell you what i have a little test for you. Given you think you may well be part of the matrix, why don’t you go jump off a building? After all you don’t know you won’t fly. In fact what is flight? In fact what is what? In fact how do you know your not typing to yourself, after all you might just be a brain in a jar? TO THE BUILDING! lol

 

[AlbertBall]

What are the metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific method?

To wiki!..

“The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called “science” in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.”

 

[AntiTheist]

Unless you seriously think this list answers that question?

He was clearly talking about tangible benefits. For example, the ability to communicate across great distances with picture and sound – which is what a TV provides – is something that just about everyone would consider “beneficial” to the human race.

All questions dealing with meaning - i.e. “benefits” - are outside the scope of science.

Well, sure. Anything that’s not science is “outside the scope of science.” The goals I set for myself each day are “outside the scope of science.” The delightful feeling I get when I look at fluffy clouds is “outside the scope of science.” The decision as to what I should eat tonight is “outside the scope of science.”

But science isn’t inferior to any of those other things. In order to make decisions about those questions, I’ll need to know things about the world around me, and in order to achieve my objectives, I’ll need to develop tools that can modify my environment to my suiting. Guess what? That is precisely inside the scope of science.

It’s funny that science has “no rival” and yet it cannot even answer this basic question - what is happiness, where does it come from?

Well, you mean aside from the fact that there are some pretty interesting evolutionary accounts of “happiness”? You should really read up on biological accounts of emotions before you go around making statements like that. But aside from that, sure, science can’t tell you, individually, what happiness is for you specifically, but that’s irrelevant to the point that science is the number one tool for discovering things about the world around us and modifying the world around us.

R Daneel:

1. The external reality exists.
2. It’s laws are uniform.
3. Our senses (and their extentions) deliver accurate information about it.

And, just so we’re clear, these begin as assumptions and become increasingly confirmed as they yield results.

The fact that making these assumptions does give us a high degree of prediction power and the ability to manipulate the environment confirms that there’s something to these assumptions that must be giving us all this power.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel: And, just so we’re clear, these begin as assumptions and become increasingly confirmed as they yield results.

The fact that making these assumptions does give us a high degree of prediction power and the ability to manipulate the environment confirms that there’s something to these assumptions that must be giving us all this power.

Not that it needs to be answered, but: ABSOLUTELY! Basic principles are distilled from innumerable observations. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

 

[1holycatholic]

1. The external reality exists.
2. It’s laws are uniform.
3. Our senses (and their extentions) deliver accurate information about it.

An incomplete list, but it’s a start.

What proof do you have for these assumptions?

 

[AntiTheist]

What proof do you have for these assumptions?

If ever there were a moment for a facepalm, this is it. Scroll up and read the end of my post.

We don’t “prove” them – we begin by accepting them as assumptions, and the more they assist us in yielding results, the more they become confirmed. The fact that making these assumptions grants us the ability to predict things and manipulate nature to such a great extent tells us that there is something to these assumptions in order for it to give us such power.

 

[1holycatholic]

If ever there were a moment for a facepalm, this is it. Scroll up and read the end of my post.

I wasn’t responding to you.

We don’t “prove” them – we begin by accepting them as assumptions, and the more they assist us in yielding results, the more they become confirmed. The fact that making these assumptions grants us the ability to predict things and manipulate nature to such a great extent tells us that there is something to these assumptions in order for it to give us such power.

So you accept them solely on faith, without any proof. Gotcha.

 

[AntiTheist]

So you accept them solely on faith, without any proof.

Your reading skills leave something to be desired. The assumptions made in science have nothing to do with faith. They have everything to do with the confirmation of said assumptions through results.

This isn’t hard “proof,” but it is evidence.

Faith, meanwhile, is belief without evidence (because, obviously, if you had evidence, you would not need faith).

The two aren’t remotely the same.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OMG can you even read, you don’t actually ever properly read the replies to you? Several times now you have put words in my mouth replying to something i never said, and you continue to ignore when I have now told you about five times, yes we do make the two assumptions, **AND FOR GOOD REASON, BECAUSE MAKING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS YIELDS PHYSICAL BENEFITS! **As i posted on the other thread…

lol, no i don’t take any interest in philosophy as it is a meaningless pursuit when it comes to real knowledge.

I have a scientific degree and am still studying. Home many times must one explain that being there for their self HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH empirical evidence.

So you can sit and ponder such meaningful questions like “is the world as we see it, or are we part of the matrix?”, because that is going to do wonders for the furtherment of mankind [/end sarcasm] and i will continue in the pursuit of real knowledge.

Its also worth noting that i have already agreed that two assumption have to made, and why to we make these assumptions, well to quote thunderf00t “because of the benefits it brings mankind”.

If it was up to people like you would would all still be sitting in huts pondering the absurd. Thanks to science we have, food, modern medicine, TV’s, cars, computers, planes, etc etc. When it comes to understanding the universe Science has NO RIVAL. Lets put it to the test philosophy v the Scientific Method, lets compare the results.

In fact Science V Every other method. Here watch this video 10 mins may change you life

youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

its not science vs. every other method. its science vs. logic.

science loses to logic. hence the power of mathematics.

the old rational vs. empirical debate.

youre missing the point, the scientific method falls to the problem of induction, this has been known for a very long time. if you had some philosophical education, you would know this.

it doesnt ever prove anything. the results of it are great, thats not the problem with it.

it is not conclusive evidence of anything, and it is an entirely inappropriate standard to address questions of logic, like metaphysics.

empiricism has failed countless times, the flat earth, spontaneous generation, phlogiston, etc. so when you insist on the logically self refuting empirical standard, then attempt to judge logical studies by that standard, you cannot reconcile the two.

its like your trying to mathematically reason, with the information out of a car mechanics manual.

logic is the higher form of reason, without it, bare empiricism is useless. you cant define empirical interactions without mathematical reasoning. logic has no such restriction. just choose a set of axioms and reason from them.

 

[R_Daneel]

An incomplete list, but it’s a start.

What proof do you have for these assumptions?

AntiTheist already answered it, but just to reaffirm: one cannot “prove” basic assumptions, one does not even want to “prove” them, It is a futile question to ask. One cannot “prove” the law of identity, or the law of non-contradiction - these are axioms.

But, just for the fun of it, try to assume the opposite:

1. The external reality does not exist. If you assume that, you are a solipsist, and as soon as you open your mouth to communicate it, you immediately refuted yourself.
2. The laws of the reality are **not **uniform. You cannot assume that dropping stone will fall down, maybe sometimes it will fall down, but other times it will fall up. How many times do you have to repeat this experiment, before it becomes clear that objects fall down, not up?
3. Our senses or their extentions do not deliver accurate information. How will you verify that assumption? You cannot use your senses, after all. What else is there? Even theologists understand the principle that “nihil est in intellectu…”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no anything wilth out philosophy, there is no philosophy without people, there is no people without DNA, there is no DNA without stars. Whats your point?

Science stands on its own merrits, it is science that had revealed the truth of the cosmos, not philosophy, not religon. Or you do still wonder if you are a brain in a jar, do you still think the world is 6000 years old and women were made from a man’s rib? :coffeeread:

check your hisotry of science. science is a branch of metaphysics, where the empirical standard is use to explore natural philosophy.

science doesnt stand by itself. it wouldnt exist without the philosophers.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To wiki!..

“The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called “science” in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.”

the opinion of a wiki editor is hardly historically accurate. philosophers were the people who developed the scientific method.

 

[R_Daneel]

So you accept them solely on faith, without any proof. Gotcha.

You pretty much removed yourself from rational consideration. As a final word: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”. Maybe you comprehend this simple truth, maybe you don’t. Not my problem. But have faith and eat a piece of sand and have faith that it is nutritious. See how far your faith will sustain you…

 

[AlbertBall]

check your hisotry of science. science is a branch of metaphysics, where the empirical standard is use to explore natural philosophy.

science doesnt stand by itself. it wouldnt exist without the philosophers.

Point has been raise and dealt with, please read the thread so we don’t have to keep going over the same stuff.

 

[AlbertBall]

the opinion of a wiki editor is hardly historically accurate. philosophers were the people who developed the scientific method.

Scientists are the people responsible for science and many of us, including myself, want to distance their selves as far possible from pointless pursuits like philosophy.

Now if you’ll excuse me it just to happen i have some real science to go and do.