44,000 year old house built by Neanderthals discovered

[Zoraptor]

Any discussion between a religious person and a diehard atheist is pointless - as is any discussion between a reasonable person and a fundamentalist of any degree. Both are arguing from a point of view that is irrelevant and detrimental to the other. One demands proof, the other demands faith.

 

But again the Atheist has the better position. It is logcial after all to demand proof of an on the face of it pretty outrageous claim. More logical certainly than to propose erecting an invisible wall between the imperical and the metaphysical and demanding that they not be allowed to affect one another. It's not a perfectly balanced dichotomy. One side is cheating by proposing that it need only supply anecdotal evidence of its existence.

 

I don't like the "proof/ logic" argument. It's impossible to (for example) prove logically that other people have independant existence- the only thing provable is that I apparently have independant thought, there's no proof that anyone else exists independant of me and it's impossible to furnish actual proof of it.

 

Sure, other people give a good facsimile of having independant thought but I'm sure it's just a very advanced simulation as that fits all the evidence as well as it being "reality" does.

[Tale]

Solipsism isn't as attractive as it once was. Or maybe it was never attractive. But it's definitely a strawman if you're bringing it up to others that argue for proof.

 

The world you interact with is a valid one, even if it can't be ultimately proven beyond solipsistic doubt. But its characteristics within the context can be examined.

[Gorgon]

One can reduce everything to relativity and suggest that nothing can be definitively observed or proven, but it kind of leaves one backed into a corner.

 

Does that leave you with the following division :

 

1/3 that God is real.

1/3 that God is not real.

1/3 that nothing is real making either eventuality equally likely.

 

In the latter event the reality of God would be decided on the number of believers vs. the number of non believers, meaning that one could either create God or destroy him if one could achieve a 100% coefficiency among individuals, whether more than one actually exist or not.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

God would be a Schr

[Gorth]

God would be a Schr

[Gorgon]

God would be a Schr

Edited January 5, 2012 by Gorgon

[Orogun01]

But if we are unable to observe God in his acts all we have left its whatever we attribute to be God, so in that sense God becomes whatever we are.(Omnipresence)

Since we try to understand and explain phenomena through our collective knowledge; to it's extent, God becomes known in what we can perceive.(Omniscience)

 

So in the Psychological sense (excluding Freud) God it's the explanation of the unknown greater force of our lives, it could either be an emergent property of our need for order or the final conclusion drawn from our interpretations of metaphysical experiences.

[Tigranes]

The quandary being that your formulation, Orogun, does not necessarily prove or disprove the autonomous existence of a God. (But then, what happens when we sufficiently diverge from whatever that God may be, and the emergent God we have come to define socially? If that hasn't already occured, that is?)

[Zoraptor]

Solipsism isn't as attractive as it once was. Or maybe it was never attractive. But it's definitely a strawman if you're bringing it up to others that argue for proof.

Nah, it's not a strawman. It's more that the subjective and objective are related but immiscible concepts. Objectivity requires, at its base, an ability to independently measure and quantify and is absolutely essential to a scientific approach. There is objective proof* that objects attract each other dependant on mass, that if you combine excess oxygen and carbon via an ignition source you end up with carbon dioxide, that chimps and humans are closely realted genetically etc. The question of whether god exists is entirely immiscible with scientifc observation- he could not be measured or quantified in anything other than a wholly subjective sense. Same as with the metaphysical question of whether any of us really exist.

 

Basically you cannot use science to prove/ disprove the abstract. You could probably say much the same thing about "honour" (cannot be objectively measured) as god, but that does not mean that honour doesn't exist.

 

*technically consistent failure to disprove

[Drowsy Emperor]

Congrats Krezack, you made a douchebag of yourself, all by yourself.

 

How many magic mushrooms does it take to reach your level of enlightenment?

[Nonek]

I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.

 

I'm with Conan on this matter.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Any discussion between a religious person and a diehard atheist is pointless - as is any discussion between a reasonable person and a fundamentalist of any degree. Both are arguing from a point of view that is irrelevant and detrimental to the other. One demands proof, the other demands faith.

 

But again the Atheist has the better position. It is logcial after all to demand proof of an on the face of it pretty outrageous claim. More logical certainly than to propose erecting an invisible wall between the imperical and the metaphysical and demanding that they not be allowed to affect one another. It's not a perfectly balanced dichotomy. One side is cheating by proposing that it need only supply anecdotal evidence of its existence.

By requiring scientific proof one makes the implicit assumption that the physical world is all that exists. But why should one assume that?

[Gorgon]

Why would one assume that the metaphysical cannot be observed with scientific means.

[pmp10]

Why would one assume that the metaphysical cannot be observed with scientific means.

You don't need to.

Many religions can point to a variety of miracles that have been well documented.

But since scientific method demands independent replication you simply can't consider metaphysical in scientific terms.

[Orogun01]

The quandary being that your formulation, Orogun, does not necessarily prove or disprove the autonomous existence of a God. (But then, what happens when we sufficiently diverge from whatever that God may be, and the emergent God we have come to define socially? If that hasn't already occured, that is?)

A Panentheistic, ultimate deity its hard to define by virtue of its definition the divergence it's only relevant if we define aspects of our Gods in the metaphysical plane through will.

We constantly diverge and differ on everything because that's the nature of our grasp on knowledge (Think Plato's Cave) we formulate our views based on the scope of our knowledge and beyond that we can perceive the makings of a greater force. That we attribute it to a deity may be our way of making sense of the constant "unknowable", the continuous questions emergent from our grasp on reality. I doubt they will be a day when all questions are answered and as our knowledge of the Universe becomes more complex our need for understanding also grows and so there is always the possibility of a God.

 

And now off to read comics until I fall asleep.

[Moose]

By requiring scientific proof one makes the implicit assumption that the physical world is all that exists. But why should one assume that?

 

Let's assume a non physical world is valid.

 

Certainly you can argue a scientifically unfalsifiable claim is valid.

 

Would that would mean all scientifically unfalsifiable claims are valid?

[HoonDing]

Philosoraptor approves of this thread.

[Gorgon]

Why would one assume that the metaphysical cannot be observed with scientific means.

You don't need to.

Many religions can point to a variety of miracles that have been well documented.

But since scientific method demands independent replication you simply can't consider metaphysical in scientific terms.

That just leaves out miracles. What about the weight of a soul as it leaves the body. Considering that it holds the lifetime memory of an idividual it must be very complex, it also must be made up of particles of some kind. These can be measured, the experiment would be repeatable.

 

String theory suggests particles can be several places at once, even belong to alternate universes. It's logical to assume heaven would be made of familiar and detectable particles. We could scan for it if we knew the particle signature of human souls.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

With respect I'd say it's nonsense to assert that an extra-dimensional construct needs to intersect with our dimension in a replicatable laboratory measurable way.

 

In human psychology you have the devil of a time scientifically measuring abstract emotions, yet very few would argue they don't exist. By which I mean that it could be some form of particle or field we just don't have the kit or mathematics to sense or even model. Indeed, since I'm in a mischievous icecream fuelled mood I'd suggest that it is precisely the confused nature of religious scripture which indicates that even the softest modelling of 'god' fails at the first hurdle.

 

EDIT:

 

For example, how on earth could you model a religion which asserts in the same book that killing is OK, and at the same time not ok? I admit I'm no maths wizard, but that's got to be tricky.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Walsingham

[Moose]

Nevermind, it's too late in the day :]

Edited January 6, 2012 by Moose

[Orogun01]

With respect I'd say it's nonsense to assert that an extra-dimensional construct needs to intersect with our dimension in a replicatable laboratory measurable way.

 

In human psychology you have the devil of a time scientifically measuring abstract emotions, yet very few would argue they don't exist. By which I mean that it could be some form of particle or field we just don't have the kit or mathematics to sense or even model. Indeed, since I'm in a mischievous icecream fuelled mood I'd suggest that it is precisely the confused nature of religious scripture which indicates that even the softest modelling of 'god' fails at the first hurdle.

 

EDIT:

 

For example, how on earth could you model a religion which asserts in the same book that killing is OK, and at the same time not ok? I admit I'm no maths wizard, but that's got to be tricky.

Theoretical physics depend on math, and it's recognition as viable proof on the scientific community. Psychology can produce cases in order to prove their thesis, not to mention that neuropsychology experiments are quite easy to reproduce.

 

In scripture there is a distinction between murder and killing as one clearly indicates intent. It's like society when it tells you that murder it's wrong unless you're a policeman.(Clash reference) Modeling a religion on this it's as simply as making specific clauses in which its okay to kill.

[Gorgon]

You could start by examining a few of the postulates of religion. Do human beings have immortal souls. Are they subject to Newton's three laws. If not, Why ?.

 

Why would God re-invent the wheel during creation and use entirely incompatible hardware on his side. Doesn't seem practical. Besides, weren't we created in his image.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Gorgon

[Drowsy Emperor]

The futility of trying to think about God through science.

 

Science is just a tool. And its still a very blunt tool for everything that relates to the human condition.

 

Having such faith in a tool that tends to reinvent itself and discard most of its previous knowledge every so often is really more akin to a religious belief than the rational discourse it masquerades as.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

Whatever do you mean. I don't know of any religion that discards dogma when faced with conflicting evidence.

[Gorgon]

Science and religion are not flip sides of the same coin. In science you try to understand the world around you, using whatever tools are at your disposal. In religion you basically just give up and accept a 1000 year old template without question.