Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

The question is: tested, exactly how?
All religious believers may say the same thing, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc, yet they cannot all be right.

Hold on… you left somebody out.
They all don’t say the same things. On the surface…..Some worldviews claim there are many gods, some claim only one God, some claim the universe is god and yet others even claim there is no god or gods. Did I leave anybody out?

So test them by simply comparing them to our best understandings of reality. For example, compare them to our best understandings of an expanding universe and its' rational implications and observe what pans out. Some of those worldviews wash out with just that one aspect reality alone. Then repeat with our other understandings of reality and observe what happens.

In reality it’s comparatively simple.

Either one set of beliefs is true and the others are wrong, or all of them are wrong, but they can't all be right.

Well said to your list. But if my list is exhaustive then logically one must remain. Right? It’s the law of the excluded middle. Now if I left something out then I would revise.

BUT, by your reasoning a theist that has reasons for believing God exists does not have faith.

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion except through conflating reason and verifiable evidence...which are two different things.

Because you folks keep stating that faith means w/o reason. So therefore since I have reasons to believe the God exists it means I don’t have faith.

Conflation? What is your reasoned difference and how does it already seem to eliminate any and all reason I have yet to reveal?

again

Ok, here in the context of your sacred huddle of “God does not exist” atheists, I tentatively concede that I don’t have faith (as defined by you without reasoning) that God exists. I further confess that I’m a theist that has reasons that God exists. Better?

Your conclusion is flawed because you conflate 'reasons for believing' with justification through verifiable evidence. Reasons for believing that something is true may be subjective.

Conclusion? It wasn’t a conclusion. It was a Forced confession (actually concession). Read it again. Where are you getting this reasoned conflation? And how is it flawed? Please remember I only mentioned reasons you introduced verifiable evidence. See above.

Also taken from same dictionary………
Atheista person who believes that God does not exist

A person who does not believe in the existence of something usually does so because there is little or no verifiable evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of that thing.

Possibly. Or it could be just as likely an irrational suppression of the evidence.
And in that context you really have to explain/reason to us what you mean by verifiable evidence. How strict of a “suppressionist” are you?

 

[DBT]

Hold on… you left somebody out.
They all don’t say the same things. On the surface…..Some worldviews claim there are many gods, some claim only one God, some claim the universe is god and yet others even claim there is no god or gods. Did I leave anybody out?

Where did I say they say same things? In fact I said that they say different things....hence they cannot all be right. They cannot all be right because they believe different things and the things that they believe contradict each other.

That was the point. Their different sets of beliefs are based on faith and do no agree with each other.

So test them by simply comparing them to our best understandings of reality. For example, compare them to our best understandings of an expanding universe and its' rational implications and observe what pans out. Some of those worldviews wash out with just that one aspect reality alone. Then repeat with our other understandings of reality and observe what happens.

There is nothing in the natural world that is able to test the existence of Brahma against, there is no evidence for the existence of Brahma...this is a faith based belief.


The Biblical world view of special creation, garden of Eden, world flood, the existence of Yahweh as the creator does not relate to the natural world as we see it and measure it and study it scientifically.

The biblical world view is a faith based belief.

If the former is true (which cannot be shown), the latter is false, and vice versa. Or more likely both are false because they cannot be tested because they don't actually relate to the natural world of observation and testing.

These are taken on faith...beliefs held without verifiable evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Possibly. Or it could be just as likely an irrational suppression of the evidence.
And in that context you really have to explain/reason to us what you mean by verifiable evidence. How strict of a “suppressionist” are you?

What evidence? If the evidence is available, it should be examined and tested.

 

[abaddon]

remez,

Nevermind protesting over and over that you have reasons. Just simply give those reasons.

Verifiable evidence means people want to SEE what you’re calling God, or at least to know what's necessary to see traces of God for themselves. It’s their skepticism and enthusiasm for truth in action. We don’t trust anyone’s testimony on things. The testifier needs to point at phenomena and say “from this evidence I get this conclusion, for the following reasons: x, y, z”.

Nobody's suppressing evidence except you, or you don't have any. No one looks at the universe and derives “God” from it after they're taught the concept and find it somehow valuable.

 

[abaddon]

No one looks at the universe and derives “God” from it after they're taught the concept and find it somehow valuable.

That should read, No one looks at the universe and derives “God” from it until after they're taught the concept and find it somehow valuable.

 

[Underseer]

Faith doesn't mean without reason, it means without evidence. That is the dictionary definition of the term.

Faith is an inherently inferior epistemology because conclusions arrived at with evidence will always be more reliable and map closer to reality than conclusions arrived at without evidence. Always.

 

[remez]

It’s their skepticism and enthusiasm for truth in action. We don’t trust anyone’s testimony on things. The testifier needs to point at phenomena and say “from this evidence I get this conclusion, for the following reasons: x, y, z”.

Phrases like ………..there IS no evidence…..”we” don’t trust anyone’s testimony…..require justification as well, for they sound very suppressing. What you folks even consider as evidence and then how you judge its’ verifiability is completely on the table of discussion. Your conclusions need be rational, consistent and justified. With every attempted rejection or challenge, I’ll challenge you right back to defend the very reasoning and presuppositions inherent in your rejections and challenges. Rational consistency will need to be demonstrated.

Nobody's suppressing evidence except you, or you don't have any.

I began with an obvious piece of evidence in my last post….an expanding universe. And somehow you (singular you from here forward) accuse me of suppressing or not having evidence. But then actually addressed the exact evidence and reasoning you accused me of suppressing or not providing. That was not very consistent.

That should read, No one looks at the universe and derives “God” from it until after they're taught the concept and find it somehow valuable.

Concept of God or concept of universe? It could read either way and neither seems to make your statement have meaning.
What do you mean?

 

[DBT]

I began with an obvious piece of evidence in my last post….an expanding universe. And somehow you (singular you from here forward) accuse me of suppressing or not having evidence.

Evidence for an expanding Universe is evidence that the Universe is expanding, and nothing more.

 

[remez]

That was the point. Their different sets of beliefs are based on faith and do no agree with each other.

I told you that was well said as far as it went. But it did not go far enough. You left out the atheists. Now with everybody aboard let’s examine reality and see what best explains it. Monotheism, pantheism or atheism. Did I leave anyone out?

There is nothing in the natural world that is able to test the existence of Brahma against, there is no evidence for the existence of Brahma...this is a faith based belief.

The existence of our expanding universe eliminates the static eternal foundations of Hinduism. The implications of a universe with a finite past strengthen the validity of monotheism. Atheism? Everything can or could be explained by nature. But if nature had a beginning, what then?

The Biblical world view of special creation, garden of Eden, world flood, the existence of Yahweh as the creator does not relate to the natural world as we see it and measure it and study it scientifically.

Defend each of those assertions.

What did you mean by special creation and then also named Yahweh as the Creator? And how do that not match the reality of an expanding Universe?

Surprised you didn’t mention the age of the earth. YEC isn’t as espoused as much as it used to be and the world flood is of debate in house as well. But neither of these two issues really affect the orthodoxy.

Curious what does the Garden of Eden have to do with this? If they find it and confirmed it I guess it would really be something? But I don’t think they’ll find it. But does that mean it didn’t exist and thereby proves theism wrong?

What evidence? If the evidence is available, it should be examined and tested.

Expanding universe. Now I’m in no way claiming the case has been made for monotheism. It would take more and more I have. But for now I’m just trying to understand where this ”no evidence” for monotheism comes from and how or why?


Full disclosure …I went to post the above and noticed you added a post. So I added it on here …………

Evidence for an expanding Universe is evidence that the Universe is expanding, and nothing more.

That is a truth of reality and you are saying that truth cannot be used to confirm or deny the monotheistic assertion that the universe was not past eternal. Why not? That is what you were asking for.

 

[Juma]

The implications of a universe with a finite past strengthen the validity of monotheism.

No, it doesnt.

Atheism? Everything can or could be explained by nature. But if nature had a beginning, what then?

Yes, what then?
Then nature had a beginning.It is not evidence of any god. (If there was a god how did that begin to exist?)

We are asking for evidence of gods here and you bring nothing.

 

[DBT]

I told you that was well said as far as it went. But it did not go far enough. You left out the atheists.

No, I didn't leave out atheism.

What I said was: ''a person who does not believe in the existence of something usually does so because there is little or no verifiable evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of that thing'' - so the justification for not holding a conviction in the existence of a God or gods is the absence of evidence to justify a conviction in the existence of a God or gods, or anything else that has insufficient evidence to support a belief in its existence.

The existence of our expanding universe eliminates the static eternal foundations of Hinduism.

Which shows that you have no understanding of Hinduism and its cycles: ''The Hindu cosmology and timeline is considered by some the closest to modern scientific timelines[1] and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything,[2] but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.[3]'' - Wiki.

.
Atheism? Everything can or could be explained by nature. But if nature had a beginning, what then?

Which shows a poor understanding of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods, but says nothing about the origin of the universe or anything else.

.
Defend each of those assertions.

What did you mean by special creation and then also named Yahweh as the Creator? And how do that not match the reality of an expanding Universe?

I didn't say anything about an expanding universe as a part of biblical creation. I outlined the biblical world view of special creation....which is not my claim but that of the bible - ''in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.....''

.
Surprised you didn’t mention the age of the earth. YEC isn’t as espoused as much as it used to be and the world flood is of debate in house as well. But neither of these two issues really affect the orthodoxy.

Curious what does the Garden of Eden have to do with this? If they find it and confirmed it I guess it would really be something? But I don’t think they’ll find it. But does that mean it didn’t exist and thereby proves theism wrong?

You are all over the place. I gave a list of incompatible world views according to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, and pointed out that because they contradict each other they can't all be right.

Logically,either one is right and the rest wrong, or all of them are wrong.

.
Expanding universe. Now I’m in no way claiming the case has been made for monotheism. It would take more and more I have. But for now I’m just trying to understand where this ”no evidence” for monotheism comes from and how or why?

The evidence for an expanding universe is not evidence for monotheism, or any kind of theism. The evidence for inflation/expansion supports the proposition for an expanding universe and nothing more.

.
That is a truth of reality and you are saying that truth cannot be used to confirm or deny the monotheistic assertion that the universe was not past eternal. Why not? That is what you were asking for.

Explain your belief then...how does the evidence for an expanding universe relate to monotheism? How do you connect inflation/expansion to creation by a deity?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Gawd I dislike conversations on Faith, the goalposts may as well be on a merry-go-round as much as they're moved.

 

[remez]

You are all over the place. I gave a list of incompatible world views according to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, and pointed out that because they contradict each other they can't all be right.

And I agreed with you. But for one small exclusion…… Atheism. Which of these ideologies, worldviews, metanarratives, religions best explains reality?

You also asked how they can be tested…….I said it’s simple……just compare them to our best understandings of reality. Those that don’t match reality can be placed in the irrational column for now. We will actually use our best understandings of reality to act like a giant sieve of evidence and observe what pans out. I offered as my first example that an expanding universe as the first piece of evidence to compare them.

Which shows that you have no understanding of Hinduism and its cycles:

At one time back in the Sagan era. But as our understandings have improved scientifically the oscillating model of the universe was cast aside as interesting but no. I’m sure there are some still trying to keep it on life support, but let’s go with the best.
I’m open to revise if a better understanding of reality comes along. Which I hope you reason is epistemically sound.

Which shows a poor understanding of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods, but says nothing about the origin of the universe or anything else.

We’ve already had this conversation. Weren’t you there?
It was decided (or determined?) we had to go with the dictionary meanings of faith and atheism. Thus I made my forced confession about faith (your understanding) being without reason and pointed out the dictionary definition of atheism is not as you have stated. Reason over these definitions would not be heard on your side thus it is fair for both sides to conform to the dictionary standard.

Besides lack of belief says nothing, it’s intellectually lazy and cowardly not to defend your materialism/naturalism? I’m flat out challenging you to this…..What better explains reality atheism or theism. You can run and hide behind your lacking definition and irrationally throw your sucker punches or come and try to defend atheism like a rational mature being.

Explain your belief then...how does the evidence for an expanding universe relate to monotheism? How do you connect inflation/expansion to creation by a deity?

Monotheism, as you have pointed out, claims that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is a distinctive of theism. So is there evidence in reality that supports that distinction? I contend of course there is; the expanding universe. Now how does materialism/naturalism, the rational default ideologies of atheism, stack up to that piece of reality?

Again this one piece of evidence from reality does not make the entire case that God exists. It supports the mutual understanding that the universe had a beginning. On this point of evidence reality and theism are a match, that’s it.

 

[remez]

The implications of a universe with a finite past strengthen the validity of monotheism.

No, it doesnt.

Yes it does and I have supported my assertion. You have not.

Atheism? Everything can or could be explained by nature. But if nature had a beginning, what then?

Yes, what then?
Then nature had a beginning.

Then the cause of nature rationally can’t be nature.
Which is another discussion. But one worth investigating. Our best understandings of an expanding universe either supports or causes problems for the monotheism, pantheism and atheism.

It is not evidence of any god.

Yes it is. See other post.
And again I have supported my assertion, now it’s your turn.

(If there was a god how did that begin to exist?)

Great question?
Maybe when we are done rationally judging the admissibility of the evidence that’s on the table.

We are asking for evidence of gods here and you bring nothing.

That’s an interesting assertion.
It can be understood two different ways.

1. I did not provide anything as evidence.
Or
2. I provided the notion/implication of “nothing” as evidence?

To the first assertion, I most certainly did. The expanding universe.

To the second assertion, not yet, but that is a very interesting implication. Many recent books have addressed this important implication of the expanding universe.

So please quit getting so far out in front of us and catch up.

 

[Juma]

No, it doesnt.

Yes it does and I have supported my assertion. You have not.

Atheism? Everything can or could be explained by nature. But if nature had a beginning, what then?

Yes, what then?
Then nature had a beginning.

Then the cause of nature rationally can’t be nature.
Which is another discussion. But one worth investigating. Our best understandings of an expanding universe either supports or causes problems for the monotheism, pantheism and atheism.

It is not evidence of any god.

Yes it is. See other post.
And again I have supported my assertion, now it’s your turn.

(If there was a god how did that begin to exist?)

Great question?
Maybe when we are done rationally judging the admissibility of the evidence that’s on the table.

We are asking for evidence of gods here and you bring nothing.

That’s an interesting assertion.
It can be understood two different ways.

1. I did not provide anything as evidence.
Or
2. I provided the notion/implication of “nothing” as evidence?

To the first assertion, I most certainly did. The expanding universe.

To the second assertion, not yet, but that is a very interesting implication. Many recent books have addressed this important implication of the expanding universe.

So please quit getting so far out in front of us and catch up.

You haven't provided anything but a non sequitor. You have just STATED that "expanding universe thus god".

 

[remez]

You haven't provided anything but a non sequitor. You have just STATED that "expanding universe thus god".

That's not what I was doing.

Again this one piece of evidence from reality does not make the entire case that God exists. It supports the mutual understanding that the universe had a beginning. On this point of evidence reality and theism are a match, that’s it.

Your assertions in my last post to you still remain unsupported.

 

[Juma]

It supports the mutual understanding that the universe had a beginning. On this point of evidence reality and theism are a match, that’s it.

So that is ALL you said? That universe has a beginning? That is ALL you managed to get to after all these posts?

Now state an actual argument for how "universe has a beginning" leads you to "there is a god".

 

[abaddon]

That should read, No one looks at the universe and derives “God” from it until after they're taught the concept and find it somehow valuable.

Concept of God or concept of universe? It could read either way and neither seems to make your statement have meaning.
What do you mean?

I mean it’s because you already believe in God that you see God as a good explanation for anything. It’s a highly subjective concept that’s valuable only in the great many various ways it's valued by different people with their different cultural/psychological projections, which makes it poor physics. You listed some theisms because your faith-based "reasoning" starts with conclusions and then works backwards, using personal prejudices all along the way to arrive at the favored conclusion.

If an expanding universe means the universe is not eternal, that doesn’t make it a created universe. You’re leaping to your favored conclusion there too. Language too often does a good job fucking us up, because we assume it corresponds with actuality. For example we keep talking about things getting 'created' so we end up looking for a creator for everything. God was the ready-made answer that kept medieval theologians busily wasting their time, and likewise for every theist who also follows that impulse to use words to fashion reality.

 

[remez]

I mean it’s because you already believe in God that you see God as a good explanation for anything. It’s a highly subjective concept that’s valuable only in the great many various ways it's valued by different people with their different cultural/psychological projections, which makes it poor physics.

The beliefs don’t make the physics. The reality of the physics may provide evidential support to a belief.

I was addressing which of these; monotheism, pantheism or atheism, best explains this aspect of reality?

So I ask you which?

I’m not concerned your atheism may taint your answer. I’m interested in your reasons for which you think is the better explanation. Let those reasons stand as testimony to the rest of us to judge whether you are assessment has merit or was biased. Don’t be afraid. Just because you might have a bias does not mean you will produce a biased assessment.

When a writer sets out to write a book he does have a goal in mind. He isn’t completely unbiased. If his work displays an irrational bias, it will be called out as such. Should Dawkins book “The God Delusion” be declared biased solely because he is an atheist? He was trying to make a case.

Your suppression of the evidence in the manner is irrational.

Anyone trying to make a case for anything should be dismissed as biased. So I declare your position biased because you’re biased against theists. With that kind of suppression we’ll never get anywhere.

Remember this…………….

Nevermind protesting over and over that you have reasons. Just simply give those reasons.

So I begin to make a case. And just by doing so I’m wrong.
How is that reasonable?

 

[Juma]

So I begin to make a case. And just by doing so I’m wrong.
How is that reasonable?

No, not "just by doing it": it is not that you do it that is wrong. It is HOW you do it.

You havent yet provided any argument for why there should be god(s).

Until there is good reason and evidence for god(s), atheism is the default position.

 

[abaddon]

The beliefs don’t make the physics. The reality of the physics may provide evidential support to a belief.

I was addressing which of these; monotheism, pantheism or atheism, best explains this aspect of reality?

So I ask you which?

Polytheism, I guess. Cuz I’m just in that mood today. You left it out, are you trying to suppress it? ;-)

Which food explains the universe, rice or mashed potatoes? Which food looks kind of like what the universe looks like? The little bits clinging, or the more homogeneous goo?

Supporting this or that or whatever god(s) would do nothing except make some particular theists feel good. There’s nothing added to our knowledge of the universe, just a big fat “Whatever are you talking about when you say ‘God’?”

And that’s a question you should answer. What’s this Great Big Whatever that created the universe? Can't you see that proposing God as the reason the universe exists just raises a boatload more questions and answers none?

I’m not concerned your atheism may taint your answer. I’m interested in your reasons for which you think is the better explanation. Let those reasons stand as testimony to the rest of us to judge whether you are assessment has merit or was biased. Don’t be afraid. Just because you might have a bias does not mean you will produce a biased assessment.

Ok... here's my reasons for picking polytheism and then giving the rice and potatoes analogy to your analogous reasoning. I don't know which culture's story of gods the universe compares to or why it should matter, as I'm not a theist. It's what I said even in my first post of the thread before this convo started, and most posts since. I don't know how the universe and gods can be put into the same mix, except to go inside the imagination and see what's happening there.

You might have wanted me to pick atheism as the best explanation. But then atheism is not a description of the universe but rather a description of minds.

Your suppression of the evidence in the manner is irrational.

What you're calling "evidence" isn't what others think of as evidence. You keep begging the question, among other fallacies, and then accuse others of being irrational and unreasonable.

Remember this…………….

Nevermind protesting over and over that you have reasons. Just simply give those reasons.

So I begin to make a case. And just by doing so I’m wrong.
How is that reasonable?

No one's doing that.

You think “atheists” configured the rules so that God can’t even work as a hypothesis to test and so science and materialism and naturalism are all biased to result in atheism. But that’s not really the problem. The problem is no theist names how to test his hypothesis, or when they try they’re very upset with "Atheism" when their hypothesis fails because the evidence of nature is pretty damn solid compared to the stuff about 'maybe there’s another ‘realm’ out there with a super-powerful being in it causing this or that or the other'.

Theists always seem to want to not be wrong no matter what. But the source of their frustration isn't atheists but their God needs much too much help to exist!

Juma's right, atheism is the default position. But understand, that's not the same as saying "our meta-narrative about the universe is the default". It means that there must be good reasons to add theism into the mix.