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

[The_Exodus]

if this is the case then why should anyone take you seriously?

You shouldn’t. I advise you not to waste your time posting to Albert. He deliberately dodges questions and constantly shifts the grounds of the argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You shouldn’t. I advise you not to waste your time posting to Albert. He deliberately dodges questions and constantly shifts the grounds of the argument.

thats ok, its either an oppurtunity to bring a rational man to knowledge of G-d. or an oppurtunity to demonstrate the weakness of atheism to other theists, and lurkers who may be wondering what the truth is.

either way, i can make use of the situation.

 

[R_Daneel]

umm…yes, any way you put it, any excuse you use. asking for more evidence for one thing than another does violate the principle of equal evidence.

As usual, you don’t think your posts through. The principle of equal evidence does not mean quantitatively equal, it means that all events require the same kind (same quality) evidence. When it comes to testing a new drug, the method is always the same, double-blind testing. That does not mean that all drugs will be tested the same number of times. But that does not invalidate the same kind of testing principle.

And that is the point. The claims of the supernatural should be decided by the same methods as any other claims. What else can you ask for in the name of fairness?

And that is where the claims of supernatural fail. They only have testimonial and hearsay evidence for them, nothing else. (It is turtles all the way down). Most believers concede that, which is a good first step. However, they do not wish to admit that **provisionally **accepting a testimonial evidence is only the first step in the verification process.

Using the car crash example, a call to the police about an alleged car crash will trigger the investigation process. If it was a prank, the process will stop (maybe punishing the prankster, if he is caught). If a call about an alleged UFO landing happens, it is true that it will be discarded and will not be investigated, because the police has no time to investigate all the loonies. A tabloid might accept the call and send out a reporter - who will probably find nothing. But there is another part here: “the never cry wolf” principle. If many claims are investigated and found wanting, people will more likely discard the next claim, in the name of parsimony. Stands to reason, very likely it is a waste of time.

Since you saw fit to join this thread, I will ask you, too. Do you apply your “method”, accepting testimonial evidence as sufficient for other claims? In the case of paranormal? In the case of the Loch Ness monster? In the case of UFO’s and little green men? Very probably not (but who knows?). Why the difference, if any?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And that is the point. The claims of the supernatural should be decided by the same methods as any other claims. What else can you ask for in the name of fairness?

and what methods would those be?

And that is where the claims of supernatural fail. They only have testimonial and hearsay evidence for them, nothing else. (It is turtles all the way down). Most believers concede that, which is a good first step. However, they do not wish to admit that **provisionally **accepting a testimonial evidence is only the first step in the verification process.

what verification process are you refering too?

Since you saw fit to join this thread, I will ask you, too. Do you apply your “method”, accepting testimonial evidence as sufficient for other claims? In the case of paranormal? In the case of the Loch Ness monster? In the case of UFO’s and little green men? Very probably not (but who knows?). Why the difference, if any?

i dont have a method to apply.

 

[R_Daneel]

you seem to be under the impression that empirical evidence should be our standard.

if so surely you can show us the experiment where empiricism is verified?

if not then i dont think that a standard of evidence that cant meet its own test is a good standard.

How many times does this nonsense need to be refuted? The prinicple of empirical verification is not absolute. Claims of abstract sciences (mathematics and philosophy) are not verified empirically. Only claims about reality fall under this category. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible - that is the principle. The principle is not to be applied to itself. You pride yourself to be a metaphysician, and you don’t even know that? Shame, shame…

 

[R_Daneel]

and what methods would those be?

You define them, and I will be happy to contemplate them. Since you think that empirical verification is not applicable, you should be able to offer an epistemological method, which can lead one to differentiate between correct and incorrect claims about the supernatural. I am open to hear your suggestions.

what verification process are you refering too?

As I said, I am open to your suggestions. Epistemology is always the key.

i dont have a method to apply.

Not much of an answer. I am sure you either **believe **those claims or you don’t. In either case you must have used some epistemological method to decide. Don’t be shy, share it with us. Especially, since you seem to repudiate the usual “testimonial” method.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How many times does this nonsense need to be refuted?

it never has been refuted. ever.

because the argument is self refuting, it doesnt meet its own standard of evidence.

The prinicple of empirical verification is not absolute.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You define them, and I will be happy to contemplate them. Since you think that empirical verification is not applicable, you should be able to offer an epistemological method, which can lead one to differentiate between correct and incorrect claims about the supernatural. I am open to hear your suggestions.

you said the same method as any other claim. you had one in mind what was it? im not going to give you the answer. let see how good you are at thinking. see. you cant pretend to be smart here. you actually have to be.

i think you dont know.

As I said, I am open to your suggestions. Epistemology is always the key.

you said there was a verification process, not me, what would that be?

Not much of an answer. I am sure you either **believe **those claims or you don’t. In either case you must have used some epistemological method to decide. Don’t be shy, share it with us. Especially, since you seem to repudiate the usual “testimonial” method.

paranormal, yes.

loch ness. i dont know anything about it

aliens. yes

 

[R_Daneel]

it never has been refuted. ever.
because the argument is self refuting, it doesnt meet its own standard of evidence.

You admit it below that not all claims are subject to empirical verification. The claim in question is an epistemological claim, not a claim about the physical reality, therefore it is not subject to its own standard. This is your refutation.

obviously.
ok
only claims of the immediately physically observable fall in this category. unless you have some evidence that all of reality is constituted by the physical.

The principle of empirical verification - as you again admit it - does not pertain to the physical reality, therefore it is not subject to empirical verification.

Now here comes the 64000 dollar question. If the supernatural does not belong to the physical reality (as you claim it) and it does not belong to the abstract sciences, what kind of epistemological method is there to separate the wheat from the chaff? How do you find out which epistemological claim is true and which one is false? What is the method to find it out? Go ahead, spell it out for our edification.

 

[R_Daneel]

you said the same method as any other claim. you had one in mind what was it? im not going to give you the answer. let see how good you are at thinking. see. you cant pretend to be smart here. you actually have to be.

i think you dont know.

Of course I don’t know. I do not believe in the supernatural. You do. You should have an epistemological method to decide it.

you said there was a verification process, not me, what would that be?

Uh-oh. That is very interesting. You claim you have no method to find out which supernatural claim is true and which one is false?

paranormal, yes.
loch ness. i dont know anything about it
aliens. yes

Now, since you do believe in paranormal events, in alien abductions, in UFO’s, in little green men, what kind of evidence did you find compelling to accept those claims? how does it differ from Nessie, whose existence is only substantiated by testimonials and some fake photographs?

 

[AlbertBall]

so you believe in the logical contradiction of a self-refuting standard of evidence?

if this is the case then why should anyone take you seriously?

i must really have you in a corner to get that kind of reply.

the results of *what * do the talking?

The results of the making the assumption that our senses can be used to observe the cosmos are clear.

If we should not use our senses to gain knowledge, then by what other means do you suggest we go about it?

OR

Are you referring to “empirical evidence” if so then like i said the results speak for their self. We can claim that the scientific method is the best method based on the applications and knowledge that has been derived from it.

Give me an example of one time that the results of the scientific method have been falsified by revelation?

I can give you 100’s if not 1000’s of science falsifying religious claims.

 

[AlbertBall]

You shouldn’t. I advise you not to waste your time posting to Albert. He deliberately dodges questions and constantly shifts the grounds of the argument.

I shift the ground? Are you for real. I would not let you put words in my mouth and you call that shifting the ground? I can quote you if you like?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You admit it below that not all claims are subject to empirical verification.

i admit that by dint of my theism. big deal

The claim in question is an epistemological claim, not a claim about the physical reality, therefore it is not subject to its own standard. This is your refutation.

thats a logical contradictrion. if you claim there is a standard of truth, but it cant meet its own standard. thats a logical contradiction

The principle of empirical verification - as you again admit it - does not pertain to the physical reality, therefore it is not subject to empirical verification.

same logical contradiction as above.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course I don’t know. I do not believe in the supernatural. You do. You should have an epistemological method to decide it.

thanks for making the admission.

Uh-oh. That is very interesting. You claim you have no method to find out which supernatural claim is true and which one is false?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The results of the making the assumption that our senses can be used to observe the cosmos are clear.

If we should not use our senses to gain knowledge, then by what other means do you suggest we go about it?

OR

Are you referring to “empirical evidence” if so then like i said the results speak for their self. We can claim that the scientific method is the best method based on the applications and knowledge that has been derived from it.

Give me an example of one time that the results of the scientific method have been falsified by revelation?

I can give you 100’s if not 1000’s of science falsifying religious claims.

the verificationn scheme is self refuting for the same reason empiricism is. still a logical contradiction.

and yes, phlogiston is a instance of empiricism failing. as is the belief in a flat earth, and spontaneous generation, i could go on.

this part of the conversation hhas moved to another thread.

 

[The_Exodus]

The results of the making the assumption that our senses can be used to observe the cosmos are clear.

If we should not use our senses to gain knowledge, then by what other means do you suggest we go about it?

The point is, it cannot be verified that our senses actually give us any accurate view of reality. There is no method of testing such things, since we cannot get beyond our senses to test them. Thus, empiricism (which actually entails much more than just “trusting your senses”) is a presupposition. Do you know what this word - presupposition - means?

Also, you seem to think that the scientific method is “inference from the senses.” This, many would dispute, is not even the case. This is simply thinking in general.

For example - what are your “senses”? Before you list me the “fab five,” ask yourself who said these were our only senses? Surely thought is a sense of some sort. What about joy, fear, anger? These all effect our view of reality. So are they senses, or not?

You can have no basis for saying you ought to trust some of them and not others, except by taking certain presuppositions. I repeat this point because I fear you are in ignorance as to what this means.

 

[AlbertBall]

The point is, it cannot be verified that our senses actually give us any accurate view of reality. There is no method of testing such things, since we cannot get beyond our senses to test them. Thus, empiricism (which actually entails much more than just “trusting your senses”) is a presupposition. Do you know what this word - presupposition - means?

Also, you seem to think that the scientific method is “inference from the senses.” This, many would dispute, is not even the case. This is simply thinking in general.

For example - what are your “senses”? Before you list me the “fab five,” ask yourself who said these were our only senses? Surely thought is a sense of some sort. What about joy, fear, anger? These all effect our view of reality. So are they senses, or not?

You can have no basis for saying you ought to trust some of them and not others, except by taking certain presuppositions. I repeat this point because I fear you are in ignorance as to what this means.

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

 

[1holycatholic]

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

Seldom has the drum of scientism been beat with more vigor!

There is no science without philosophy. :coffeeread:

 

[AlbertBall]

Seldom has the drum of scientism been beat with more vigor!

There is no science without philosophy. :coffeeread:

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:

 

[djeter]

That article was well done.

Thank you for your kind words. Many of the things I post are lengthy but I like to think are worth the time spent on them.

dj