Originally posted by twhitehead I don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs. You 'take your pick' and randomly choose what to believe - or as I suggested in my initial post - you pick what you want to believe.
"I don't really understand most of your post, but it appears that you are saying that you admit that you do not have evidence for your beliefs."--whitey---
No I'm saying that none of us have conclusive evidence for our beliefs. No proof is possible. This is what drove Goedel potty in my opinon , because he got to the point where he realised that he could n't prove the statement below..
z = " nothing can be proven completely without first taking recourse to a pre assumed axiom " OR " you can't really prove anything really because you always need to pre assume something first and the system is incomplete"
The problem was that he couldn't even prove Z and Z was part of his "proof" . He was in the situation where if he proved he was right he would instantaneously have proved himself wrong as well!!!!! AND the fact that he couldn't prove Z was part of his "proof".!!!!!
Originally posted by twhitehead Either you should be able to prove them in a scientific manner or you should discard them as false.
There's something fishy about this statement. I mean, I hate poodles, but I'm not sure I can prove it scientifically. If someone says they love you, do you ask for proof? Do you contend that emotions are inherently false, whatever that means, since they are wholly subjective? It seems that your insistence on an either/or reality brackets out whole categories of human experience simply because they can't be reproduced in a lab.
Originally posted by knightmeister What BS!! Have a look at your post. God is mentioned in the first sentence and then throughout. Your question addresses the issue of science, evidence , God , proof , and belief. If you don't think God is an "ultimate question" then what is????!!!!!!
🙄
I seriously do not think "God" is a question at all.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage There's something fishy about this statement. I mean, I hate poodles, but I'm not sure I can prove it scientifically.
And why not? What I find fishy is the claim that emotions are unscientific and not subject to investigation.
If someone says they love you, do you ask for proof? If it is important to me to know whether they are telling the truth then maybe I would.
But everyone here is getting too hung up on proof. I have not asked for proof nor is it part of my argument. I am talking about evidence.
Do you contend that emotions are inherently false, whatever that means, since they are wholly subjective? No.
It seems that your insistence on an either/or reality brackets out whole categories of human experience simply because they can't be reproduced in a lab. And why can they not be reproduced in a lab? What nonsense. Lab workers have emotions too you know.
Originally posted by knightmeister No I'm saying that none of us have conclusive evidence for our beliefs. No proof is possible.
And that is where you are missing my whole point and going off on a tangent. Proof has nothing to do with my argument and neither does conclusive evidence. I agree with you fully that conclusive evidence does not exist.
My argument is that the evidence does not point to what you claim it does and you know it.
Originally posted by twhitehead But everyone here is getting too hung up on proof. I have not asked for proof nor is it part of my argument. I am talking about evidence..
To Newton, the fact of the universe's existence was sufficient evidence of God's existence. The father of modern science was a Creationist!
Metaphysical claims cannot be proven (Kant); haggling about them, or demanding proof of them, is absurd.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage There's something fishy about this statement. I mean, I hate poodles, but I'm not sure I can prove it scientifically. If someone says they love you, do you ask for proof? Do you contend that emotions are inherently false, whatever that means, since they are wholly subjective? It seems that your insistence on an either/or reality brackets out whole categories of human experience simply because they can't be reproduced in a lab.
not just the subjective issues. if a person before copernicus claimed the earth is revolving around the sun but couldn't prove it did that make it false?
if someone before copernicus claimed the earth is standing still and offered as proof"we don't feel any movement stupid so the earth is standing still" it would still have been a more acceptable proof than what the first guy said. but surprise, the earth does moves even though the first guy could offer no proof on the matter.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi not just the subjective issues. if a person before copernicus claimed the earth is revolving around the sun but couldn't prove it did that make it false?
if someone before copernicus claimed the earth is standing still and offered as proof"we don't feel any movement stupid so the earth is standing still" it would still have been a more acceptable proof t ...[text shortened]... surprise, the earth does moves even though the first guy could offer no proof on the matter.
But the point is this. Sometimes science is the best way of sorting out an issue , sometimes it's not. There are times when we can trust our intuition and times when we can't. I am a massive fan of science and incorporate scientific methodology and rational thinking into my life. For example , I think the Bible needs to be interpreted in terms of the developing science on sexuality and gay issues. I will readily adjust my thinking on this issue in line with recent research on sexuality/ biology. So, science is cool and fab but....
What I as a theist object to is the deification of science and rational thinking to the point where it becomes extreme and discounts all other ways of knowing. This position is being pursued by whitey and others on this forum with almost evangelical fervour. This is unhealthy and actually doesn't make sense. There is a place for science and a place for creative thinking and mysticism.
Originally posted by twhitehead And that is where you are missing my whole point and going off on a tangent. Proof has nothing to do with my argument and neither does conclusive evidence. I agree with you fully that conclusive evidence does not exist.
My argument is that the evidence does not point to what you claim it does and you know it.
It depends on what you count as "evidence" though doesn't it? You define evidence in a particular way based on a scientific model of "evidence" whereas I define it differently in terms of personal subjective , spiritual experience and a way of looking at the world.
You could say M= "the only evidence worth considering for God is that which would stand up in a lab under scientific conditions " ...and you would be quite entitled to believe M and have faith in M if you want but unless you have conclusive evidence to support M then its just your way of looking at the world isn't it?
I would agree that if one discounted any evidence that did not fit into rigid scientific criteria then on balance God seems unlikely , but since I have not seen you make a convincing case that we should discount all the other evidence then I don't see why I should.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.
It is a contradiction to say that God doesn't want us to know He exists by scientific experiment while claiming that what exist is evidence for the existence for God.
That's assuming that scientific experiment has within it's sphere the capacity to conduct such an experiment.
By claiming that what exists is evidence for the existence of God assumes one will determine that God exists by means other than scientific method.
What IS that means? I think it's precisely because scientific experiment cannot "prove" the existence of God nor can it explain the origin of the universe, that leaves one with no other better explanation for the existence of life than to attribute it to a creator.
Originally posted by twhitehead Tell me more about the "Experience" bit and why it is not subject to scientific investigation.
My experience , intuition etc are all subject to scientific investigation and I have not said that they weren't . I would be happy to have them investigated but I doubt whether anything conclusive would come from it that would be satisfactory to you. I also doubt whether someone would be able to show me scientific evidence that torturing babies was right . Even if they did I would no doubt choose to think that whatever science had lead to that finding was a crock anyway , my guess is so would you.
Anyway , I have answered your question how answering some of mine now?
Originally posted by twhitehead It is often stated by theists that for some reason God does not want us to be able to prove his existence using a science experiment.
It is also stated that there is observable evidence for God.
I find these two claims contradictory.
If you claim that you have observed in some way evidence for God then either that evidence is scientific in nature or yo ...[text shortened]... vely creating the evidence themselves.
In other words they do not actually have evidence.
You can show the color blue to someone who sees, you can show
the numbers of a device that may show up when you apply it to the
color blue; however, see it and reading about are two different things.
Kelly
The Hiding God.
04 Apr '08 13:10
Back to Top