Author Topic: Podcast #47  (Read 22768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Veljko

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Podcast #47
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2006, 05:30:52 PM »
Wait a minute.

God's tampering is detected all the time? Where exactly? How does it not 'count' in science? I am unaware that the Grand Kabal Of Scientists decided some things don't count.  

And as for the God question, frankly. I'm not drawn to it -- it's just that religion influences so many things it has to be considered -- and often fought.
ASA cunningly faked the Moon landings by filming all the video on the Moon.

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #47
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2006, 05:41:42 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"

It's an issue of definition.  Ive said this before, but god could moderate a debate on his own existence, and given the current rules, his existence still could not be proven.

Debates aren't science.  And if god is completely at control here, and refuses to be shown, where can you find detection?

Quote
We make rules about how to know things.  This doesn't exhaust the possibility of knowing.

So, do you have faith in god, or do you know god?  And what's the difference?
Quote
Skeptics concern themselves with the god issue as intensely as believers do, judging by the content of forums and podcasts.  We're all drawn to the god question.  I say we are drawn by design.  This evolution of sorts is of intelligent origins, in my view.

I think more than concerning themselves with the god issue, skeptics concern themselves with claims made by those infatuated with said issue.
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

Offline psyopsgr

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 18
God is dead
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2006, 06:14:15 PM »
He is said to have  died in the 19th century. The fact we are still talking about ihim proves that either 1. zombies exist, or 2. ressurection is possible, or 3.humans are imperfect modular machines and some models urgently need a  recall....You guessed it, 3 is true and for recall purposes only I say off with their heads!  :)
 cynic from Greece...my friends though would call me a sophist with a mean streak... I would describe myself as a concerned dreamer ;-)

Offline sheila

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Podcast #47
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2006, 06:15:59 PM »
Quote from: "JD"
I think more than concerning themselves with the god issue, skeptics concern themselves with claims made by those infatuated with said issue.


Thank you, JD.  Well said.

I don't mind the religion/skepticism debate that should pop up once in a while in a forum like this.  But I feel surrounded by religion and religious/cultural issues too often in daily life.  Sometimes I just want to come to this forum and be "safe" from it.  

And Thakkus, while I support your right to be a part of this community and post what you like I have to admit that I would love to see you engage in a conversation without mentioning god.  It really is true that many of us can go a whole day, or even weeks at a time, without worrying about any god issue.  It really is not part of our daily life at all (speaking for some, not all skeptics here).  Does this forum interest you in any other way than religion and skepticism?  Isn't there anything else you can discuss?  Sigh.
Hoping to god on high is like clinging to straws while drowning - Dave Matthews
I heard they found a shark and it was full of thermite  - Rebecca Watson

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #47
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2006, 06:29:52 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"


It's an issue of definition.  Ive said this before, but god could moderate a debate on his own existence, and given the current rules, his existence still could not be proven.  



I have tried to lay this out before but here it goes again. You CAN prove that a specific god either does or dosen't exist (within the limits that you can prove anything exists). For example, suppose a god that lives is the sky and opens up big flood gates to make it rain, or a god that throws lightning down from a mountain. Learning how there things really work disproves the existence of those specific gods. What you can't prove is the existence or nonexistence of god whose characteristics perfectly match what is observed in the universe.

If god were to appear in phycial form at a debate of his own existence, well first it would disprove the existence of the god you are supposing who designed the universe to play out following intricate pre-set rules that cause life to form slowly over billions of years, but he could prove his own existence. He couldn't just sit there and have people point and say "look there he is" but he could change the gavitational constant, violate the law of conservation of eergy, or make pi equal to 3. that would prove (within the limits that you can prove anything exists) that at least that specific god exists.

To illustrate my fist point that you can't prove is the existence or nonexistence of god whose characteristics perfectly match what is observed in the universe, immagine god showed up and made pi equal 3, you still couldn'y prove or disprove any god that fit that universe. For example a god that created the entity that appeared at the debate to make it seem like that was god for whatever reason, but at that point the god that appeared at the debate would be part of science (Godology) and the supposed god that created him would religion.

I know that this is a weird analogy but I think it illustrates exactally why the religious beliefs that you describe can't be known, by showing what kind of religious belief could be known.

which bring me to my next point...

Quote

We make rules about how to know things.  This doesn't exhaust the possibility of knowing.  

There are reasons we have rules for how to know things. to say "I know X" means that X is true. This is very different from saying "I believe X" because X might be false. If you say "I believe X" and X turns out to be true you still didn't know it.

What you are describing are ways of believing not ways of knowing. The way to show this is by the fact that many different people for several thousand years have used all the exact things that you described to justify a whole range of beliefs. They can't all be true therefore it is not knowlege it is belief.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2006, 11:38:46 PM »
Quote

And Thakkus, while I support your right to be a part of this community and post what you like I have to admit that I would love to see you engage in a conversation without mentioning god.  Isn't there anything else you can discuss?  Sigh.


Sheila,
Fair enough.   :)   What would you like to talk about?  Even I can get too much *** talk sometimes.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2006, 11:43:11 PM »
Quote

There are reasons we have rules for how to know things. to say "I know X" means that X is true. This is very different from saying "I believe X" because X might be false. If you say "I believe X" and X turns out to be true you still didn't know it.


I see what you mean here.  

Quote

They can't all be true therefore it is not knowlege it is belief.


But you aren't saying belief is necessarily untrue, right?  You're just saying it isn't really knowable.  Also, elements of many beliefs can all be true, with differences in some details.  

"Murder is wrong" is a belief that is true regardless of the many ways it has been framed throughout the eons.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Podcast #47
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2006, 01:32:28 PM »
We do not "make" the rules of science or knowledge. The rules are determined by logical necessity. An empirical method of understanding reality cannot work with supernatural answers. They are fundamentally incompatible. Supernaturalism is not constrained in a way that is a prerequisite for empiricism.

This does not mean that supernatural explanations are not "true", but it means we can never know. Since there are an infinite number of possible supernatural hypotheses, none of which can be subjected to empirical evidence, why even bother.

But there is a metaexperiment in all of this. If supernatural forces were dominant in the world, science could not work because it would keep running into intractable mysteries. The history of science, however, shows that science does work, and all problems so far have been solvable in the long run. So it is reasonable to conclude from the metaexperiment of science that supernatural forces are either insignificant or nonexistent. Saying that they are hidden or invisible is just another way of saying that they are insignificant.

Also,you could never prove the existence of a supernatural god. Even if such a being materialized to prove his own existence, how could we know that it wasn't just a very technologically advanced alien pretending to be a god? This is also just logic - you cannot use a set of evidence limited to the natural world to prove or disprove the existence of something outside the bounds of the natural world.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Luna

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Podcast #47
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2006, 04:32:56 PM »
All god needs to do is reveal himself. And we'll be as wrong as you can be. It's that easy unless there is no such thing....  :D
Praise Jesus.

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2006, 05:48:31 PM »
Quote from: "Luna"
All god needs to do is reveal himself. And we'll be as wrong as you can be. It's that easy unless there is no such thing....  :D


I know this seems like the answer.  I hear skeptics say this.  What would a convincing revelation look like?  

And if the concept of faith is important to god, how would revealing himself in some apparently magical fashion impact faith?
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #47
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2006, 07:54:12 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
Quote

There are reasons we have rules for how to know things. to say "I know X" means that X is true. This is very different from saying "I believe X" because X might be false. If you say "I believe X" and X turns out to be true you still didn't know it.


I see what you mean here.  

Quote

They can't all be true therefore it is not knowlege it is belief.


But you aren't saying belief is necessarily untrue, right?  You're just saying it isn't really knowable.  Also, elements of many beliefs can all be true, with differences in some details.
 Absolutely, I said it in the quote you just quoted. It is fine to hold beliefs and they might even be true, but don't claim them as knowlege.

Quote
"Murder is wrong" is a belief that is true regardless of the many ways it has been framed throughout the eons.


That is very interesting that you used this as an example. I refer you to a quote from your god

Quote from: "Deuteronomy 13:7–11"
If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .


So you are saying that your god was wrong? I am curious.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2006, 08:43:41 PM »
I would say that religion and spirituality evolve too, along with people and society.  There are many historic elements of my faith that I openly discard, such as the stories that seem to show god endorsing murder. Just like IDers like to use changes in information about evolution to discard the evolutionary process, skeptics often use quotes or negative aspects of religion to discard the existance of god.  I dont throw out god nor god's purpose -- which I believe is centered in love and salvation --simply because some have gotten it wrong.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #47
« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2006, 09:33:50 PM »
Quote from: "Thakkus"
I would say that religion and spirituality evolve too, along with people and society.  There are many historic elements of my faith that I openly discard, such as the stories that seem to show god endorsing murder. Just like IDers like to use changes in information about evolution to discard the evolutionary process, skeptics often use quotes or negative aspects of religion to discard the existance of god.  I dont throw out god nor god's purpose -- which I believe is centered in love and salvation --simply because some have gotten it wrong.


That is exactly my point, beliefs evolve with time. The people at the time held them as absolute truths, bet as beliefs evolve when you look back the beliefs tend to seem obviously wrong and even ridiculous.  And the beliefs that you and I and everyone has now will continue to evolve over the centuries and I think that it is almost a certainty  that when people in a few hundred years looks back they will think the same things about our beliefs. It is arrogant to think that anyone  has really figured out the ultimate truth, people have held may different beliefs about what the ultimate truth is, and those beliefs always evolve  and change with time as new things become known. And it is for that reason that I feel it is best to hold as few beliefs as possible as all they do is hinder man kind’s progress in the pursuit of truth. If someone believes that they can explain everything then there is no motivation to learn anything new because from their perspective there is nothing else.

I would much rather KNOW a very small number of things than BELIEVE that I can explain everything.
(Hmmmm… I’ll have to remember that, that’s a good one)

And I wasn’t trying to say because of few things in the bible are obviously wrong  that therefore all of Christianity is wrong. Sorry, I was just trying to bait you along because I figure what your response would be.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Thakkus

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Podcast #47
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2006, 11:39:20 PM »
wonk,
It's fair to say we've both been involved in these conversations many times in our lives, with many people.  We aren't here to change each other's minds (at least I'm not), but instead, to understand and be understood.  If I add to my religious beliefs by understanding that the things I believe in have value aside from belief in my god, this is a good thing, in my view, and a comforting thing since it ultimately means (take away all the heaven/afterlife stuff) that we -- believers and skeptics -- want the same things.

I don't agree that faith and spirituality will decrease in the eons ahead.  Religion yes.  Spirituality, no.

And ultimately, I stand by the belief that there is a god and he/she/it has a purpose for all of this.  A life fashioned to find and fulfill that purpose is they key.

Thanks for clarifying that you weren't trying to say all of Christianity is wrong.  I appreciate the sensitivity, though it's okay for you to state it's 100% garbage if you think so.
ou're a fanstastic audience.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #47
« Reply #44 on: June 23, 2006, 12:10:12 AM »
Yeah, I'll roll with the 'complete garbage' perspective on christianity.  There's too much pussyfooting about it.  When it's not making ridiculous factual claims, it's making all sorts of moral judgements on either side of just about any issue that could arise in the time it was written.  Slavery, murder, adultery, alienating others, attacking nations...you name the topic, and the bible can give you a for and against.  

Of course, it's not like anyone follows every word of the bible - I'm sure such a task would explode heads 'round the Earth - they just pick and choose, just like any atheist is perfectly capable of doing, except christians have the added benefit of an ultimate authority agreeing with...well, whatever they happen to choose.  Oh, and they don't actually need to back up their opinions with anything other than the word of their infallible, ambiguous god.
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

 

personate-rain
personate-rain