Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[funinspace]

The perspective of logic is derived from experience with how humans behave. Why should there have to be an assumption that God should behave or intervene as humans think ? Logically from our perspective "prophesies would not be prophesies" if God keeps intervening. There is a day all will meet the creator as it is written. Our understanding is the bible is a book of prophesies and the guide to a good way of living is by the examples of Jesus.

It seems that “we” atheists aren’t the only ones with mice in their pockets… I think many an evangelical Christian would take issue with your description/understanding of the Christian Bible(s).

 

[Learner]

It seems that “we” atheists aren’t the only ones with mice in their pockets… I think many an evangelical Christian would take issue with your description/understanding of the Christian Bible(s).

Oh yes ,well spotted .. I've done it again I mean myself and others like me.

 

[bigfield]

Just as the term "God of the gaps" is said from atheists. What Lion is indicating here is; there are gaps in science , the full understanding of the universe. How would a Creationists explain in the science language currently and insufficiently available if scientists can't explain why natural laws behaves the way it does?

No-one can completely explain why nature exists as it does. No matter how much humans learn about the nature of the universe, there will always be more questions to be answered--an infinite chain of reasons to be found.

The God of the Gaps is simply a bullshit answer to yet-unanswered questions.

 

[abaddon]

How would a Creationists explain in the science language currently and insufficiently available if scientists can't explain why natural laws behaves the way it does?

Creationists have no expertise in anything so there’s nothing for them to explain. If you had a brain tumor you’d want an expert to remove it. The expert doesn’t know everything about the brain, it’s so complex that it’s extremely difficult figuring it out. But that doesn’t mean the people who’ve studied it in depth don’t know a great deal and figuring out more as their researches continue. They don’t need the help of armchair philosophers with no knowledge, just opinions, in filling in the "gaps".

The reason cosmology seems open to just any goof saying any opinion about it is the history of armchair philosophers trying to make up for what they lacked: science. They sat about and tried, hamfistedly, to figure it out. Now, no one should blame ancient armchair philosophers and mystics for trying, or myth-makers for coming up with their stories, because they didn’t have anything else and meaning-making is essential to humans. So with science being the only source for non-stupid information about the cosmos, the only thing left for armchair philosophers nowadays is how to live a good life, politics, societal values. And, more interestingly to me, the thing left for our contemporary myth-makers (artists, novelists, movie-makers, "cultural creatives") is to help update our way of relating with what science knows about nature. Not fill in the gaps, but to bring the knowledge "home" for everybody. Like some do by promoting "the universe story" or "the epic of evolution".

Literal-minded superstitious folk who think ancient stories are factual history, who want ancient metaphors to compete with science about how all the cosmos is, are not helpful in any way at all. That is just hiding-in-a-cave atavism.

 

[Kharakov]

Lion means the God that made an atheist like Creflo Dollar rich.

The lyin' of the tribe of Judah is nigh immortal.

 

[atrib]

Just as the term "God of the gaps" is said from atheists. What Lion is indicating here is; there are gaps in science , the full understanding of the universe. How would a Creationists explain in the science language currently and insufficiently available if scientists can't explain why natural laws behaves the way it does?

Science is a tool, a methodology, a set of procedures that we use to gain knowledge of how the universe works. It is the best tool known to man when it comes to this specific application. It is stupid and ignorant to claim that we should not believe in the validity of the scientific method because we have not not figured out everything there is to know about the universe. Or to imply that that the findings of science should be placed on the same footing as the claims of creationists who do not use science to support their claims. We know a LOT more about how the universe works since we began to use the scientific method to pursue knowledge.

Creationism is nothing like science. Creationists (mostly) start with the belief that their interpretation of their scriptures is perfect, and if scientific method yields conclusions that contradict science, then the scientific method is flawed. Creationists do not use evidence and reason to support their beliefs, they rely solely on the authority of scripture. Do you understand why this is a bad thing?

The perspective of logic used here is derived from experience with how humans behave. Why should there be an assumption that God should behave or intervene as humans think ? Logically from our perspective "prophesies would not be prophesies" if God keeps intervening so coinciding that there would be a day all will meet the creator as it is written.

Which creator? mankind has invented thousands. Why should any of these creator stories be treated as fact? No creationists will answer this question.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've (still) never seen any science which weighs against God's existence. Thanks for NOT rocking my boat.

And if you don't know what I mean by "God" then you're a pretty lame type of atheist - you don't even know what it is that you don't believe exists.

...he isn't quite sure whether or not he really doesn't know what it is he doesn't believe in

There's a pretty distinct difference between "Your god doesn't exist." and "You have no reason to assume that your god is real."

I agree, these are two different claims.
But why would a person who assumes God's existence need a reason?
Assume - verb. Suppose to be the case, without proof.

Also correct me if I am wrong here, but from a perspective of logic, if your god makes no attempt to intervene in the affairs of his creations, isn't that basically the same thing as not existing from our perspective?

I agree that IF neither God nor His angels nor satan ever intervened or interacted with any event in the lives of any humans then, apart from His being the first cause of our existence, we might not otherwise know whether God exists.
All we would have is an existential question mark hanging over the world.

 

[abaddon]

All we would have is an existential question mark hanging over the world.

Are you now the "custodian of the word 'we'"?

The existential question mark wouldn't hang over the world, it'd just float around inside of some brains. In your case, as a shadow of the confusion that would happen … to YOU, not to everyone… if you ever stopped assuming God’s existence.

 

[Lion IRC]

The perspective of logic is derived from experience with how humans behave. Why should there have to be an assumption that God should behave or intervene as humans think ? Logically from our perspective "prophesies would not be prophesies" if God keeps intervening. There is a day all will meet the creator as it is written. Our understanding is the bible is a book of prophesies and the guide to a good way of living is by the examples of Jesus.

It seems that “we” atheists aren’t the only ones with mice in their pockets… I think many an evangelical Christian would take issue with your description/understanding of the Christian Bible(s).

What issue would they/we have with Learner's description?

 

[atrib]

I agree, these are two different claims.
But why would a person who assumes God's existence need a reason?
Assume - verb. Suppose to be the case, without proof.

You can assume anything you want. But if you want your assumptions to be taken seriously by others, you need to support your assumptions with evidence.

Also, most religious people don't just assume that their favorite god exists and has certain characteristics, they loudly proclaim this assumption to people around them as if their claims/assumptions are factual, and even frame the laws of the land around them, or try to.

 

[Lion IRC]

I agree, these are two different claims.
But why would a person who assumes God's existence need a reason?
Assume - verb. Suppose to be the case, without proof.

You can assume anything you want.

So can you. So can anyone.
The point here is that assumptions, presumptions, presuppositions, don't require reason. They are brute claims.
But I don't merely assume God exists. I don't need to.

But if you want your assumptions to be taken seriously by others, you need to support your assumptions with evidence.

What assumptions?

Also, most religious people don't just assume that their favorite god exists and has certain characteristics,

I know. That's my point. They DONT just assume.

...they loudly proclaim this assumption to people around them as if their claims/assumptions are factual,

If the only thing theists ever said was "we assume" stuff, atheists would have nothing to contend with. Instead, atheists spend most of their time;
1. asking for the evidence
2. rejecting said evidence
3. declaring that there is zero evidence
4. asking for evidence again

...they loudly proclaim this assumption to people around them as if their claims/assumptions are factua and even frame the laws of the land around them, or try to.

You mean people actually try to pass laws which shape the society they want to live in?
Man. Democracy sucks.

 

[Kharakov]

If the only thing theists ever said was "we assume" stuff, atheists would have nothing to contend with. Instead, atheists spend most of their time;
1. asking for the evidence
2. rejecting said evidence
3. declaring that there is zero evidence
4. asking for evidence again

 

[Elixir]

But I don't merely assume God exists. I don't need to.

Right, you have had certain subjective experiences that you attribute to one exact particular god.
Nope, not assuming anything, not at all.

Religion rots the brain.

 

[LordKiran]

Just as the term "God of the gaps" is said from atheists. What Lion is indicating here is; there are gaps in science , the full understanding of the universe. How would a Creationists explain in the science language currently and insufficiently available if scientists can't explain why natural laws behaves the way it does?

On top of this there is the excuse for definitions of God to be clarified. Lets us then say we mean a 'creator of all things' visible and unseen/ forces of nature. This should cover the varied versions of God meaning man and the animals were created.

Also correct me if I am wrong here, but from a perspective of logic, if your god makes no attempt to intervene in the affairs of his creations, isn't that basically the same thing as not existing from our perspective?

The perspective of logic used here is derived from experience with how humans behave. Why should there be an assumption that God should behave or intervene as humans think ? Logically from our perspective "prophesies would not be prophesies" if God keeps intervening so coinciding that there would be a day all will meet the creator as it is written.

What I am saying is that if humans cannot perceive the existence of something with their senses or tools, then by all practical accounts it does not exist. If you want to argue for god as a metaphysical concept, then be my guest, but that is very different from arguing for the existence of a physical god in our universe.

 

[LordKiran]

So can you. So can anyone.
The point here is that assumptions, presumptions, presuppositions, don't require reason. They are brute claims.
But I don't merely assume God exists. I don't need to.

I tend not to make assumptions based on nothing but personal belief. To do so is the literal definition of irrationality.

What assumptions?

Is this a joke?

I know. That's my point. They DONT just assume.

They base their assumptions on second/third hand information that has never been verified and never can be verified. In other words: Belief. This of course leads us right back to square one. Basing an assumption on belief and nothing else is the literal definition of irrationality.

If the only thing theists ever said was "we assume" stuff, atheists would have nothing to contend with. Instead, atheists spend most of their time;
1. asking for the evidence
2. rejecting said evidence
3. declaring that there is zero evidence
4. asking for evidence again

Notice that when they reject your evidence, they don't do so because they're irrational, but rather because your evidence isn't actually evidence just because you say it is.

You mean people actually try to pass laws which shape the society they want to live in?
Man. Democracy sucks.

Isn't forcing people through law to follow a religious doctrine completely unconstitutional?

 

[Learner]

No-one can completely explain why nature exists as it does. No matter how much humans learn about the nature of the universe, there will always be more questions to be answered--an infinite chain of reasons to be found.

I go with this.

The God of the Gaps is simply a bullshit answer to yet-unanswered questions.

Believers will always believe mysterious ways are attributed to God or His opposing adversaries. Using God of the gaps answers in debateable discussion is understandably not wise. (I may have done this myself automatically I dare say)

 

[Learner]

Creationists have no expertise in anything so there’s nothing for them to explain. If you had a brain tumor you’d want an expert to remove it. The expert doesn’t know everything about the brain, it’s so complex that it’s extremely difficult figuring it out. But that doesn’t mean the people who’ve studied it in depth don’t know a great deal and figuring out more as their researches continue. They don’t need the help of armchair philosophers with no knowledge, just opinions, in filling in the "gaps".

Creationists have obviously found it hard to explain by science for many years although nowadays there are some religious scientists. Science will accumulate more knowledge and discoveries which is only a "neutral" tool of measure. A good analogy of the brain I agree with.

The reason cosmology seems open to just any goof saying any opinion about it is the history of armchair philosophers trying to make up for what they lacked: science. They sat about and tried, hamfistedly, to figure it out. Now, no one should blame ancient armchair philosophers and mystics for trying, or myth-makers for coming up with their stories, because they didn’t have anything else and meaning-making is essential to humans. So with science being the only source for non-stupid information about the cosmos, the only thing left for armchair philosophers nowadays is how to live a good life, politics, societal values. And, more interestingly to me, the thing left for our contemporary myth-makers (artists, novelists, movie-makers, "cultural creatives") is to help update our way of relating with what science knows about nature. Not fill in the gaps, but to bring the knowledge "home" for everybody. Like some do by promoting "the universe story" or "the epic of evolution".

I won't argue that cosmology is open to opinions being that in large, the universe is unknown and as you said; we should not blame ancient philosophers. They would have "observed" the world about them similar in fashion to the curiosity of enquiring minds seen in science where they make their personal opinionated conclusions to what they thought they knew of the world. It isn't imo that big a difference in method as we today with the science understanding ponder on thoughts then think up interesting "theories" with various ideas that seem plausible about the universe which would in time be updated.

Literal-minded superstitious folk who think ancient stories are factual history, who want ancient metaphors to compete with science about how all the cosmos is, are not helpful in any way at all. That is just hiding-in-a-cave atavism.

Science doesn't go against or competes with the idea of Creation. Some folk are are just content with the belief even though it seems unhelpful to those outside the belief

 

[Keith&Co.]

Believers will always believe mysterious ways are attributed to God or His opposing adversaries. Using God of the gaps answers in debateable discussion is understandably not wise. (I may have done this myself automatically I dare say)

Learner, do you understand the difference between attributing things to god and god-of-the-gaps arguments?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Science doesn't go against or competes with the idea of Creation.

YOUR idea of creation, maybe.
That's not the opinion of many christains, Learner. Many use their understanding of Creation to specifically compete with, dismiss or criticize science.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."
-- Martin Luther

 

[Learner]

Learner, do you understand the difference between attributing things to god and god-of-the-gaps arguments?

What I was highlighting was that some religious people can't explain outside the belief. The scripture is the explanation.