They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[remez]

Peep Peep Peep
From your fragile self-refuting shelldom of scientism you mock yourself here…..

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.Thus illustrating that you don't have a clue.

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

Because …………You ignored this………..

There you go again with that arrogance. My theistic worldview does not oppose science. Science is a very important aspect of my theistic worldview. I actually contend that science better supports theism than atheism. Now when I say that; I’m not saying science proves God. It can’t. But it can certainly provide evidence that implies his existence. Think about it….science can’t prove he doesn’t exist either. So we are both using science to contend for our worldviews.

…….…. and you fail to understand the difference of our epistemologies.

You have provided evidence that your worldview is some form of metaphysical scientism. You "dichotomize" science and theism. You reason as though all knowledge must come from science and be absolute.

My worldview is theistic. I don’t oppose science. I just don’t reason that all knowledge and justified belief can come from science. All of science is a subset of my knowledge and justified belief. I see no contradictions between science and theism. Science is just one why to obtain knowledge and justified belief.

That is why I’ve fought your false dichotomy. That is why it annoys me when you assume science is atheism. Science is neither atheism nor theism. Science is powerful philosophical structure we use to understand our reality. Thus each of us embrace science to support our worldviews. As I stated earlier I contend and defend that science better supports theism. Note that the terms “proven” and “supported” are not synonymous.

Our worldviews are metaphysical. Science is not metaphysical. I contend the science can support different metaphysical worldviews in different ways and so do you. You demonstrate this when you assume science is atheistic only and is opposed to theism. Thus you assume science can support a metaphysical worldview. Where it falls apart is when you blindly emote that science cannot support theism. By even thinking that……. you are admitting that science can be used to critique a metaphysical worldview. Which is fine if you recognize it. You did not.

So in conclusion science can SUPPORT a metaphysical worldview but science cannot PROVE a metaphysical worldview. It is your blindness to that reasoning that has you thinking we are talking past one another. We are not. You are just losing the battle of reasoning.
And no wonder…………

Unfortunately for me, writing a paper listing all the things that I don't know wouldn't.

……..I have already deferred to you as the virtuous king of ignorance. I DON"T KNOW why you keep bringing that up.

 

[remez]

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.

... snip ...

Thus illustrating that you don't have a clue.

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

Unfortunately for me, writing a paper listing all the things that I don't know wouldn't.

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

Thanks.
Scientism is amusing.
Peep Peep Peep

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.

... snip ...

Thus illustrating that you don't have a clue.

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

Unfortunately for me, writing a paper listing all the things that I don't know wouldn't.

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

The argument consisted of my saying that the Kalam syllogism was an argument from ignorance because the premises were not knows. Remez insists that it is known that the Earth had a beginning and recoiled at the idea I offered that the premises needed conditional ifs. I would be happy with P2 being stated as "the universe may have had a beginning" which his 'evidence' could imply.

 

[remez]

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

The argument consisted of my saying that the Kalam syllogism was an argument from ignorance because the premises were not knows. Remez insists that it is known that the Earth had a beginning and recoiled at the idea I offered that the premises needed conditional ifs. I would be happy with P2 being stated as "the universe may have had a beginning" which his 'evidence' could imply.

First ….universe not earth.

Secondly, I did not recoil at the idea. I explained that the “if notion” you're emoting about is built in to the function of how an argument operates. IF you feel p2 is false THEN make your case. I have the burden of proof to defend p2.

 

[skepticalbip]

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

The argument consisted of my saying that the Kalam syllogism was an argument from ignorance because the premises were not knows. Remez insists that it is known that the Earth had a beginning and recoiled at the idea I offered that the premises needed conditional ifs. I would be happy with P2 being stated as "the universe may have had a beginning" which his 'evidence' could imply.

First ….universe not earth.

Secondly, I did not recoil at the idea. I explained that the “if notion” you're emoting about is built in to the function of how an argument operates. IF you feel p2 is false THEN make your case. I have the burden of proof to defend p2.

Just damned dude. You are insistent on misstating my position. The matter of either true or false can not made because we don't know, at least for anyone who does not reason from top down revelation. As I posted earlier, I would not have called it an argument from ignorance if (like some theists I really, really believed that) I knew, I would have seen it as either false or true.

ETA:
To your "First ….universe not earth.", you are right. It was a brain fart that caused my typing of Earth rather than universe. But then you seem to have understood that the intent was universe.

 

[Lion IRC]

No. The 'age of the universe' is in pop sci papers and pop TV programming. 'The age' calculated in science literature is stated as assuming that Guth's inflationary model is correct (but it is widely disputed) then the time back until our current physics fails because of the density and temperature approaching infinity. It does not cover a 'beginning'. You could maybe claim that our current physics understanding began to apply (not necessarily the universe) if Guth's disputed model is accurate... But then Guth's model is, as I said, widely disputed because it has some really serious problems.

What's also a fact is that ever since we learned that the universe (space/time) began to exist, atheists have been squirming and backpedaling to change the definition of the word 'universe' and the word 'began' and the definition of words like "something" and "nothing".

They have also been jettisoning the scientific method (empiricism) and starting to delve into blatant WOO by making supernatural claims about speculative metaphysic events they believe may have happened outside of and/or prior to space/time.
So much for verificationism and falsifiability.

But this is necessary dogma for atheists because they have an anything-except-God bias.
Atheism of the gaps.

You need to read the science papers, not newspapers, glossy mags, or rants from those that have no idea of what is actually in the science papers.

ETA:
Just out of curiosity, since "I believe" is a perfectly acceptable declaration, why is it that some theists feel compelled to try to 'prove' through what they mistakenly think are scientific claims support for that "I believe"?

But then I guess that a theist declaring "I believe" and an atheist declaring "I understand otherwise" doesn't really make for much of a debate.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
I think...
I believe x...
I believe otherwise...
I understand x...
I understand otherwise...
These are all valid epistemic positions. Atheists have beliefs. Scientists have beliefs. We all have beliefs based on our understanding/interpretation of what we regard as "the evidence".
What's wrong with theists drawing on secular/scientific sources of evidence to support their position?

 

[skepticalbip]

ETA:
Just out of curiosity, since "I believe" is a perfectly acceptable declaration, why is it that some theists feel compelled to try to 'prove' through what they mistakenly think are scientific claims support for that "I believe"?

But then I guess that a theist declaring "I believe" and an atheist declaring "I understand otherwise" doesn't really make for much of a debate.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
I think...
I believe...
I understand...
These are all valid epistemic positions. Atheists have beliefs. Scientists have beliefs. We all have beliefs based on our understanding/interpretation of what we regard as "the evidence".
What's wrong with theists drawing on secular/scientific sources of evidence to support their position?

It wasn't an attempt to make a point. It was curiosity. Faith is a matter of acceptance, belief without evidence e.g. "God said it, I believe it." Such a statement would be a perfectly acceptable declaration of faith. Others may try to convince the one declaring it that it is wrong but it remains an acceptable declaration of faith. However a problem is created when the believer tries to 'prove' goddidit through evidence because evidence can be refuted while a simple declaration of faith can not.

 

[steve_bank]

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

My view is that human morality is based on a consensus. Gays were once the lowest creature on the planer in the USA, Slowly over time the view shifted to a majority supporting gays. Over the last 30 years or so Strong Christian Evangelical anti Semitism has shofted to being brothers with Jews.

The problem with most Christians is they practice slectve scriptural morality. The only item from Leviticus taken is anti gat.

Clealry Christ in the gospels reinforced the progibition against divorce, yet many Christians divorce. Clearly sex outside of moralmarriage is banned.

The Christian view is that the lack of religious bible based absolute morality leads to chaos. Clearly not the case.
Our vocal Christian bible thumping politicians are about as duplicitous, dishonest, and corrupt as can be. Their so called morality is leading us into serious trouble.

Follow the conversation…….. You lied……. and I called you on it.

And you then took my...... “lighten-the-moment” .......comment about atheistic morally….. to run off on yet another emotional tirade about your emotions on morality.

Seriously get with it. Whenever I have asked you to defend/address anything you have messed up, you to change the topic.

You are really acting like one of those dumb Christians you are always complaining about. Thereby proving my point about Yahzi’s arbitrary outrage against dumb Christians.

Keep going it’s been entertaining and your efforts are modeling my point to farmer Rhea.

Lied about Christian anti Semitism? Lied about harsh treatment of gays based on Leviticus while ignoring all other rules? And then there is slavery and blacks reduced to syb human based on a passage about Ham?

Seriously. That silly tantrum has nothing to do with what you lied about.

Be specific as to a lie. As to rant, it is observable fact.

You relay need to study history. As Christians in the 1st century or so developed an identity separate from Jews they coopted the bible as their own and the Christian Jewish enmity began. The Jews killed Christ and rejected the messiah. I heard 'the Jews killed Christy' as a kid in the 50s. Pre WWII a version of Mein Kemph was popular in our Christian USA. In it Hitler blamed Jews for killing Christ as an appeal to Christians.

Statistical Jewish hate crimes are still at the top I believe.

A reproachment of sorts began in the late 90s by American white Christians. The reconstruction of temple along with the rituals and the establishment of Israel became intertwined in end times prophesy and the second coming.

Do you know what the Inquisition was by the RCC and how Jews were forced to convert or loose everything?

Christianity while not always has been intolerant and violent.

The Curse Of Ham was used in colonial America as a justification for slavery. That is indisputable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Logical explosion.

Logical explosion is the proposition that if one allows bad reasoning, non sequiturs or contradictions, from such errors, one can prove anything.

For example,
If lemons aren't yellow, then God exists.
This lemon is unripe, it is green, not yellow.
Therefor God exists.

Googling for logical explosion can find one lots of other examples. But logical explosion can be more subtle. If as per kalam, one starts with the claim the universe had a begining, but that is false all your following claims based on that false claim are essentially logical explosion, falasities. To be successful in proving a hypothesis, one's basic assumptions must be sound or all else is suspect and thus can be ignored as proving anything. Ideas about logical explosion date back to the middle ages, so it is not like any of this is new or some thing atheists came up with to trip up theists. And this is what science is about. Demonstrating evidence if possible for a hypothesis so we can safely build on a proven concept. Or at least until better information and observations are available, think replacement of classical physics with quantum physics and relativity.

It is not necessarily easy to achieve good theories we can build on..The ideas of verifiability and falsifiability have proven to be hard to apply to things like ethics and aesthetics for example. Leading some theologians to declare that verifiability and falsifiability are not possible and need to be abandoned. (I'm looking at you Alvin Plantinga). Opening up their pet theologies to be hotbeds of logical explosion.

 

[skepticalbip]

Lion repeated an oft-seen Christian complaint. That people who question the details of Christianity are "disingenuous" or they are trying to "trick" christians, or the like.

I ponder that because it's an idea that doesn't really compute for a scientist. There is no point in being disingenuous, because the facts will make the case in the end. So it recalled to me some quotes from years past that I had kept. The first is from me, years ago, but the others are from other posters at the II.

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

To get the thread back to the OP,

I think this is a reasonable question. I think that I may have sorta touched on what I think may be an answer in one of my posts to Remez. That being the wide disparity between how devout theists acquire 'knowledge' and how use of the scientific method imparts 'knowledge'. The religious acquire 'knowledge' through revelation and authority so even the idea of questioning that acquired through revelation makes no sense to them - it was a revelation so obviously true and unquestionable - god doesn't make mistakes or lie. Anyone who would dare to question such 'knowledge' has to be disingenuous in their questioning because 'the truth' is so obvious.

 

[steve_bank]

What appears as a trick question to a theist on the forum seen as intended to trick or confound is simply a question for which the answer requires facing a contradiction or a logical falsehood.

To actually answers such a question may mean invalidating one's faith. Hence the endless avoidance of the root questions and spinning of bits of scripture.

It would be like a movie scene where someone is in denial of an obvious truth but desperately clings to denial.

 

[remez]

To get the thread back to the OP,

I concur.

I think this is a reasonable question.

Agree.

I may have sorta touched on what I think may be an answer in one of my posts to Remez. That being the wide disparity between how devout theists acquire 'knowledge' and how use of the scientific method imparts 'knowledge'.

Ok, but that was not reflected in the OP. Flat out the OP generalized theists as unthinking, unreasonable, unscientific fools.

The religious acquire 'knowledge' through revelation and authority so even the idea of questioning that acquired through revelation makes no sense to them

Not exactly. Religious is very general. For this theist I did not acquire my justified belief of God’s existence through revelation and authority. It was philosophy and science that lead me to seriously consider theism. Regardless of how I obtained my justified belief the question is reasonable.

Anyone who would dare to question such 'knowledge' has to be disingenuous in their questioning because 'the truth' is so obvious.

Not at all. The question is fair regardless.

It was the rest of the context of OP I objected to.
To you specifically and genuinely…..Thank you for that learning experience. I had fun.

 

[steve_bank]

!!!!Warning !!! This thread is NSFT Not Safe For Theists. Post and participate at your own risk.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I had a philosophy prof who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII. He told a story about the post war Soviet occupation.

A political officer was addressing the town. Someone in the course of it stood up and said if god does not exist why must you try and prove it? The Russian drew his sidearm and shot him.

To reverse the idea, if you are a theist. have faith, and believe in god why must you prove it? Is your faith not sufficient to sustain it without ceaseless arguments to affirm it?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I concur.

Agree.

I may have sorta touched on what I think may be an answer in one of my posts to Remez. That being the wide disparity between how devout theists acquire 'knowledge' and how use of the scientific method imparts 'knowledge'.

Ok, but that was not reflected in the OP. Flat out the OP generalized theists as unthinking, unreasonable, unscientific fools.

So glad you came along to prove that point so...ineloquently.

 

[skepticalbip]

Back in the 70s I had a philosophy prof who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII. He told a story about the post war Soviet occupation.

A political officer was addressing the town. Someone in the course of it stood up and said if god does not exist why must you try and prove it? The Russian drew his sidearm and shot him.

To reverse the idea, if you are a theist. have faith, and believe in god why must you prove it? Is your faith not sufficient to sustain it without ceaseless arguments to affirm it?

I think that the overwhelming majority of theists don't try to prove what they believe. "Knowing" is sufficient for them. It is only a small minority that feel the need to 'prove' it. Why they do is a good question. I assume (but maybe not) that it may be one of two reasons. First could be not necessarily a crisis of faith but at least a beginning of questioning so the need to explore evidence to support their faith. Second could be to convert the heathen.

I know personally several believers that have just assumed that I was a believer because the subject had never came up (people who just assume their 'truth' is obvious generally assume others will also see the same 'truth'). Then they happen to bring up something religious, assuming I agree, and are surprised to find I don't. They didn't try to convince me but just remained comfortable in their belief. I didn't try to convince them but remained comfortable in my disbelief.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I know personally several believers that have just assumed that I was a believer because the subject had never came up

On the rare occasions it came up before the last three years, i had to stop counting the number of people whose first response was that they had never before met an atheist.
I tend to doubt that claim, but i quickly gave up trying to convince them otherwise.
Since Trump arrived on the political horizon, it seems to come up a lot more,..,

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I had a philosophy prof who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII. He told a story about the post war Soviet occupation.

A political officer was addressing the town. Someone in the course of it stood up and said if god does not exist why must you try and prove it? The Russian drew his sidearm and shot him.

To reverse the idea, if you are a theist. have faith, and believe in god why must you prove it? Is your faith not sufficient to sustain it without ceaseless arguments to affirm it?

I think that the overwhelming majority of theists don't try to prove what they believe. "Knowing" is sufficient for them. It is only a small minority that feel the need to 'prove' it. Why they do is a good question. I assume (but maybe not) that it may be one of two reasons. First could be not necessarily a crisis of faith but at least a beginning of questioning so the need to explore evidence to support their faith. Second could be to convert the heathen.

I know personally several believers that have just assumed that I was a believer because the subject had never came up (people who just assume their 'truth' is obvious generally assume others will also see the same 'truth'). Then they happen to bring up something religious, assuming I agree, and are surprised to find I don't. They didn't try to convince me but just remained comfortable in their belief. I didn't try to convince them but remained comfortable in my disbelief.

Yes, but they have a rationalization for everything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, but they have a rationalization for everything.

Yeah, well, I can explain....

 

[steve_bank]

It would be interesting for some of us to meet and see what ensued.