Did you see the article about the planets rotating in the opposite direction of the stars?
As red and I discussed, they won't go back to the drawing board and try to make the best possible new model of planet formation with the new info, they will just find an explanation that fits the existing theory.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The fact of the matter is you can't believe in a being who exists outside of our intellectual capacities, and then throw human terminology and limitations on him.
You mean human terminology like "omnipotent" and "omniscient"? Sorry. That a being existing outside of our understanding doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of logic. And anybody who claims something like that appears to have a lack of faith. Do you really need to blow God of his already magnificient proportion by equipping him with illogical abilities. Apparently just to justify worshipping him because he is "almighty"? Is "powerful beyond understanding" not enough?
And I'd really love to see the part of the religious text, where God is called "omniscient" or "omnipotent"...
Originally posted by truejedi
Did you see the article about the planets rotating in the opposite direction of the stars?As red and I discussed, they won't go back to the drawing board and try to make the best possible new model of planet formation with the new info, they will just find an explanation that fits the existing theory.
Or how of course they don't go back to the drawing board because
[list=1]
[*]It is not contradictory evidence
[*]That is what scientists do
and
[*]Why throw out a theory entirely when a small correction yields the same result as starting from scratch?
[/list]
dont BEE dumb
That a being existing outside of our understanding doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of logic.
Every time it's come up, belief has been part of a suite of a-rational thinking. Not irrational in that it is incorrect, but antirational in that it does not use rationality as a method toward truth.
Ignoring rationalism also lets you ignore logic, doesn't it?
Originally posted by truejedi
You shouldn't throw it out entirely, but you should form a new conclusion based on all of the evidence, as opposed to simply adding it to your existing theory. Thus would be formed the most accurate theory.
I have a theory that predicts ABC and D
Now I observe E.
Does this mean I have to start over and get to something with ABC, D, and E? No, because I've got the first four covered. If I can add E to the mix and it is not contradictory then why shouldn't I?
Because say you can define ABC and D as Beta.
Now, if you simply add E, as a factor into ABC and D, and leave the other side of the equation unchanged, you still have Beta. (its like multiplying something by a limit approaching 1. Its not one, but its darn close)
If you started over, and redid your math for ABCand D, with E CALCULATED into, as opposed to merely including E, you might reach Beta', which is a much more precise number than mere Beta.
Originally posted by Borbarad
You mean human terminology like "omnipotent" and "omniscient"? Sorry. That a being existing outside of our understanding doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of logic. And anybody who claims something like that appears to have a lack of faith. Do you really need to blow God of his already magnificient proportion by equipping him with illogical abilities. Apparently just to justify worshipping him because he is "almighty"? Is "powerful beyond understanding" not enough?And I'd really love to see the part of the religious text, where God is called "omniscient" or "omnipotent"...
What? I was using your words. I didn't bring "omniscient" and "omnipotent" into the conversation.
Now what realm of logic are you talking about? Logic according to us correct? That's very debatable. However even if at the very least God exists outside of our understanding, trying to use so called logic and reason to disprove his existence or his infinite abilities is hardly the way to go.
Also, not sure about your next statement. Because I believe that God, as an all knowing all powerful being, exists outside of our intellectual capacities, I lack faith? If anything, believing you can explain a "higher being" in human terms using logic and reason is having TOO much faith in humans.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
doesn't it though?Every time it's come up, belief has been part of a suite of a-rational thinking. Not irrational in that it is incorrect, but antirational in that it does not use rationality as a method toward truth.
Ignoring rationalism also lets you ignore logic, doesn't it?
Logic from a standpoint is that a "magical mythical being" doesn't exist and/or no free will, etc.
Logic from a religious standpoint(antirational from a secular standpoin) dictates that the human mind cannot comprehend the goals/motives/actions of a supreme being.
Beliefs should be measured by how well they describe the world around us within the limits of human perception. Obviously, since humans are incapable of having nomenal or direct knowledge of something in and of itself, we are forced to rely on the tools available to us.
That being said, when the theist claims that his beliefs cannot be measure by logic because God is beyond logic, then he is giving a tacit admission to the fact that he has no evidence or rational reason to believe in religion. This is why we have the word "faith." Belief in something without any empirical or rational reason to believe. Faith is belief for the sake of the belief, not because it represents some condition about the world.
This wouldn't be an issue, if faith was kept in the closet and not used as a basis for constructing societies and laws or attempts to make truth claims that dictate how people should act.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Beliefs should be measured by how well they describe the world around us within the limits of human perception. Obviously, since humans are incapable of having nomenal or direct knowledge of something in and of itself, we are forced to rely on the tools available to us.
That being said, when the theist claims that his beliefs cannot be measure by logic because God is beyond logic, then he is giving a tacit admission to the fact that he has no evidence or rational reason to believe in religion. This is why we have the word "faith." Believe in something without any empirical or rational reason to believe. Faith is belief for the sake of the belief, not because it represents some condition about the world.
This wouldn't be an issue, if faith was kept in the closet and not used as a basis for constructing societies and laws or attempts to make truth claims that dictate how people should act. [/B]
There are a lot of things that sould be kept in the closet, religion being the least of my concerns.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I disagree. Faith and belief does NOT have to be within the limits of human perception, that is why it's belief/faith, NOT evidence NOR logic.
This is exactly why only the weakest of ideas stand on faith, because faith has no relation to reality. Why faith is granted such a highly esteemed spot is probably based on evolutionary reasons, because as much as I hate to admit, religion was advantages on evolutionary grounds because it provided an easily accessible set of social guidelines that the average individual did not have to think about as so much simply obey.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yet at the same time, atheists have no evidence that God doesn't exist. And absence of proof doesn't indicate proof of absence. I'm willing to stipulate that I cannot prove the existence of God. YOU cannot prove that he doesn't exist. Therefore, philosophy and religion shouldn't be discussed unless the condition I mentioned earlier are met.
Disbelief is the default position. I have been given no empirical reason to believe in God and I continue to wonder why theists make a butchery of the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The thing I would say is that I have been given no empirical evidence that God does not exist, but then I haven't been given any empirical evidence that suggest that an invisible pink elephant that is microscopic in size doesn't live in my bedroom.
The conditions you mentioned earlier are excuses, a cop out to avoid having to subject your beliefs to same rigorous process scientists use to do their best to describe the world.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There are a lot of things that sould be kept in the closet, religion being the least of my concerns.
Tell that to these women: http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html
Naturally, God is far more concerned with what people do while naked. Although to give the Jews credit, the only people they seem to abuse are Palestinians.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Hey, who can tell me whether this is gramatically correct:
"I awake to a sensation of being lifted into the air feeling well rested." Red, you're good at this kinda thing, help a brother out.
Hint: you are missing a comma, maybe two. It is a shitty sentence though and I would rewrite it like this.
I awaken to the sudden sensation of something lifting me into the air, even as I feel well rested.
Not sure why you need the well rested part, its kind of awkward.
Originally posted by Autokrat
This is exactly why only the weakest of ideas stand on faith, because faith has no relation to reality. Why faith is granted such a highly esteemed spot is probably based on evolutionary reasons, because as much as I hate to admit, religion was advantages on evolutionary grounds because it provided an easily accessible set of social guidelines that the average individual did not have to think about as so much simply obey.
Disbelief is the default position. I have been given no empirical reason to believe in God and I continue to wonder why theists make a butchery of the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. The thing I would say is that I have been given no empirical evidence that God does not exist, but then I haven't been given any empirical evidence that suggest that an invisible pink elephant that is microscopic in size doesn't live in my bedroom.
The conditions you mentioned earlier are excuses, a cop out to avoid having to subject your beliefs to same rigorous process scientists use to do their best to describe the world.
Tell that to these women: http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.htmlNaturally, God is far more concerned with what people do while naked. [/B]
You really don't want to go down that route. You're equating religious nutcases with religion in general, which is an epic fail. That's like me equating Stalin's secular humanistic/anti religious beliefs and the murder of 25million+ soviets, with secular humanism in general. In the end, you don't want to start comparing death tolls because you'll lose.