The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis? - Page 13

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Layman" is rapidly moving up my "Loaded Words that Woo Slingers Love Yet Have No Clue What Actually Means" top 10 list.

What woo?

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Did you use philosophy to explore the fairies and pixies in your foliage?

Only a camera.

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

As soon as you take these, there's no point in discussing anything.

Quite, you can discuss the implications though. Its called philosophy.

Quote:

Let's say you "win" the following discussion on whether god exists, but under the conditions you ascribe

I have not claimed that god exists.

Quote:

- how can we be sure we're really discussing philosophy on the internet (and that you've won), and we're not actually playing space-football in a 4-dimensional hypercube in the centre of jupiter?

I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios.

Quote:

If you can't accept that we are capable of correctly observing reality, then you've thrown everything out the window and any debate is impossible.

Are you claiming that humanity is capable of correctly observing reality?

I think you'll find that there are quite a few posters who realise that we cannot make this assumption.

JoeBentley · 27th April 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality.

Better then you constantly bringing up the possibility that there is no reality.

Seriously where do you expect the discussion to go after you bring up solipsism? All we can do is sit here on our hands after you play the "Brain in a jar" card.

Quote:

What evidence?

You're kidding, right?

JoeBentley · 27th April 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

What woo?

Because it seems that in every discussion of woo someone, as often as not you, does this, play the "You can't know everything, therefore woo" or some variation thereof, card.

JoeBentley · 27th April 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios.

So something someone just made up now is an obvious figment of the imagination, but something someone made up a few thousand years ago and wrote down in a book of parables is something we can't question until we prove we're not in a Matrix scenario.

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Because it seems that in every discussion of woo someone, as often as not you, does this, play the "You can't know everything, therefore woo" or some variation thereof, card.

What woo am I peddling?

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Better then you constantly bringing up the possibility that there is no reality.

Seriously where do you expect the discussion to go after you bring up solipsism? All we can do is sit here on our hands after you play the "Brain in a jar" card.

I don't know where you came up with "there is no reality" and "you bring up solipsism".

Perhaps you have something to say about Dawkin's hypothesis now?

stokes234 · 27th April 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Quite, you can discuss the implications though. Its called philosophy.

Philosophy has useful implications. For example, discussion of ethics can lead to better informed decisions on how to treat other people. Please list some useful results of the discussion of "what if nothing is real".

Originally Posted by punshhh

I have not claimed that god exists.

Good.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios.

Under your ridiculous assumptions, the science used to well document these origins could all just be us incorrectly observing reality. Which is why it's useless.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Are you claiming that humanity is capable of correctly observing reality?

Yes. By correctly observing reality, we've made thousands of useful scientific advances.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I think you'll find that there are quite a few posters who realise that we cannot make this assumption.

I'd be interested to see what evidence they provide to support this belief.

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

What woo am I peddling?

Mystical woo about unknown unknown entities influencing the toss of a coin at critical points in human history. Also giving credence to Limbo when he states that he has danced on the dark side of the Moon.

JoeBentley · 27th April 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

What woo am I peddling?

You're more of a Woo Apologist then a direct peddler. It seems there's a good chance if someone makes a reasonable skeptical statement about a claim delivered without sufficient evidence, we'll soon find you in the discussion claiming "We can't know reality" or "Trust our sense" or other such solipsistic claptrap.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I don't know where you came up with "there is no reality" and "you bring up solipsism".

I have no intention of playing this game. You know full well the sort of arguments you use. Your appeals to some level of hairsplitting metaphysical doubt as to our base perception of how we perceive reality add nothing to intellectual discussions.

Quote:

Perhaps you have something to say about Dawkin's hypothesis now?

Why? It can't compete with your metaphysical hairsplitting. "Water is wet" can be dismissed by the Brain in a Jar argument just as easily. If you want to count that as "win" so be it, but I ask you to take a step back and honestly think about where depending on such a dodge to win and/or get out of arguments really gets you.

Last of the Fraggles · 27th April 2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

If you want to describe religious doctrine as fairy stories thats fine with me provided you don't later conflate the two.

"something you think can't be disproved", now who's making up fairy stories?

Yes, along with many other scenarios.

I suggest to put that back where you pulled it from and suggest some more suitable definitions to discuss.

How did you arrive at your definition then? Other than 'just making it up'? What criteria was your definition meeting? What was it trying to explain?

[quote] Perhaps you should take a look at what people say they believe and then we can progress past the kindergarten.

Great, this is what I was suggesting should be compared with the definition.

You say none, fine how do you know that and have you considered the possibilities by which you might be wrong? [quote]

There is nothing which needs a God to explain it, therefore inventing a God is a pointless waste of time. Reality works just fine without the need for a God. There is no evidence to point us to God. There is nothing upon which to base a definition or description. There is only imagination of 'what a God might be if I wanted one to exist' and 'how can I define something that can't be tested so I can prove a point'.

Quote:

So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality.

I regard people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken for the very specific reasons that there is absolutely no reason to believe they are correct and every reason to believe that they are not. We know that people are wrong all the time about all manner of things. If we're talking about retellings of ancient myths handed down through generations then even more so.

Quote:

I would suggest that whether the myths are discredited or not. To dismiss them is to presume that God does not exist, without evidence

If the myth can be dismissed it can be dismissed. If 'God' does not remain when we dismiss the myth then bad luck for 'God'.

If a lunatic claims to have seen a green elephant on his visit to the surface of the moon and we can show he wasn't on the moon then we don't need to keep searching for green elephants. We really really really don't need to start discussing how maybe green elephants are maybe invisible, hiding green elephants that only reveal themselves to certain people at certain times, and we really really really really really really don't need to start wondering whether reality is all an illusion and maybe we are just thoughts in the mind of a giant metaphysical green elephant.

Sometimes there is no green elephant and sometimes there's just loonies making **** up.

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 07:36 AM

Reality works fine punshhh, why do we need an unknown unknown god who seems impossible to trace?

Dinwar · 27th April 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality.

No--there are ample neurological tests to indicate that we should view statements such as "I've experienced God" with some skepticism. Hallucinations aren't uncommon--just stay awake for a few days and you'll have one. Mine tend towards the bizzar (giant glass spiders and the like), but some people see saints and things. Further, most don't understand how the brain works. I understand paredolia to some extent, and audiodolia to a lesser degree, and that's enough to show that seeing cannot always be believing, nor can hearing. Then there are the liars--people like L. Ron Hubbard who claim to have mystical knowledge for material gain. This is more common than you think: look into the number of priests who are atheists, or Mother Teresa's final letters. Then there's the fact that if you tell children something is true constantly from the time they're born--and you can pick ANYTHING for this--a certain percentage will think they've found proof. It's a function of how a child's brain works.

Because there are so many errors that can occur with or without the person saying they experienced God knowing about it, any claim about any deity should be met with extreme skepticism. At minimum, evidence is required before we conclude that it's true.

Your position, and the position of theists in general, is untenable. You obviously don't believe that EVERYONE who said they experienced God is telling the truth--the Nazi slogan ("God with us!") is enough to prove that--but without establishing a definition of the deity you want to discuss, and without evidence independent of personal, untestable and unverifiable experiences, there's simply no valid criteria for determining which experiences are real and which aren't. It boils down, eventually, to "People who agree with me are right; everyone else is wrong". It can't be otherwise--the ONLY criteria you have for evaluation of claims of experiencing gods are the claim and your personal biases. And that means that you're reaching a conclusion prior to gathering the evidence.

Quote:

To dismiss them is to presume that God does not exist, without evidence

Dismissing an idea as insufficiently supported to warrant consideration IS NOT the same as saying the idea is wrong. I've explained the difference a number of times in this thread, and it's extremely annoying that you continue to persist in this flagrant falsehood.

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Reality works fine punshhh, why do we need an unknown unknown god who seems impossible to trace?

You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP.

No philosophy involved.

Richard Dawkins presented some interesting ideas regarding the genone. But once he stepped into the debate around atheism and religion. His reasoning was little better than what has just been demonstrated in this thread.

He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish.

Or will anyone put one of his more thought about arguments forward? to demonstrate his more comprehensive appreciation of the subject of gods?

tsig · 27th April 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes and what is its origin? and how is it generated? and what is it?

It is a mystery to us with our thick lensed rose tinted glasses.

Do you think you can take off those glasses and gain a clear look at reality?

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP.

No philosophy involved.

Richard Dawkins presented some interesting ideas regarding the genone. But once he stepped into the debate around atheism and religion. His reasoning was little better than what has just been demonstrated in this thread.

He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish.

Or will anyone put one of his more thought about arguments forward? to demonstrate his more comprehensive appreciation of the subject of gods?

Why should philosophy be involved? Who needs philosophy to tell them that gods are a human invention and have no effect on reality? I don't think that you know what the purpose of philosophy is. You appear to be redefining words again. When you say philosophy you mean a mixture of theology and mysticism.

tsig · 27th April 2012, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes and what is its origin? and how is it generated? and what is it?

It is a mystery to us with our thick lensed rose tinted glasses.

Originally Posted by punshhh

In laymans terms what he said is fine. But when you dig a little deeper everything that science is telling us about existence is only about how it appears to behave. Not what it is or what actually exists behind the appearances.

Existence itself is a mystery to science.

Yes I agree when it comes to any practical application. However throughout history people have on ocassion realised the potential of the human mind to develop the vision of insight. Such visionaries have developed this capacity and have come up with ideas which may or may not point in the direction of a deeper truth and understanding of existence. It does of course remain within the realm of speculation.

So your whole message is that existence is a mystery and that we're all groping in the fog, not understanding the actual reality around us except for a select few that seek to understand the universe by looking in their own minds.

Trying to understand the world by looking into the human mind is backwards.

tsig · 27th April 2012, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As usual I'm pointing out that we are not in the position to make pronouncements on the existence or not, or behavior of gods.

Why are gods unquestionable?

Really looks like just another way of saying GWIMW.

JoeBentley · 27th April 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why should philosophy be involved? Who needs philosophy to tell them that gods are a human invention and have no effect on reality?

And this in a nutshell is the issue.

Why are you bringing this into this discussion? Would you run into an operating room during open heart surgery and ask the doctor why he is bothering trying to fix the guy's sticking aortic valve when he isn't certain the guy, his heart, his scalpel and the whole world aren't just a delusion?

Resume · 27th April 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish.

Do you honestly imagine Dawkins hasn't read "some philosophy?" Do you further imagine many of your correspondents here haven't as well?

Last of the Fraggles · 27th April 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP.

No philosophy involved.

I think that's pretty darn good philosophy right there. If you have an explanation that works why add something that doesn't do anything and that you couldn't possibly know is there or not or even begin to explain or describe?

A much more practical philosophy than indulging in navel gazing whataboutery to try to imagine how a God might exist if it did without even knowing what a God is or what it does first.

tsig · 27th April 2012, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes I'm happy to do this.

I have offered a definition to work with, I was waiting for someone to agree on the definition before proceeding.

Lets see, it looks as though I can contextualise the definition now.

I suggest for discussion a god which is;

1, Intelligent to at least to the level or above of humanity.

2, Is the creator or origin of known existence.

3, Interacts in some way with known existence.

4, Is not omnipotent/present/scient/benevolent.

Also I have pointed out some of the potential limitations of humanity in addressing this.

1, We can't rely on our kind of reason or logic being accurate.

2, We can't rely on the observation that known existence is as it appears.

3, We can't presume to limit the abilities of this god to what we perceive as being possible or not.

This should be enough to begin a discussion, unless anyone would like to suggest any alterations or additions.

It's Jref which seems to be giving philosophy a bad name, as has been acknowledged by a number of posters.

I suggest for discussion a god which is; (tsig in parenthesis)

1, Intelligent to at least to the level or above of humanity. (a great big human)

2, Is the creator or origin of known existence. (who took a crap)

3, Interacts in some way with known existence.(flushed it down the Cosmic Crapper)

4, Is not omnipotent/present/scient/benevolent.(can't spell)

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Resume

Do you honestly imagine Dawkins hasn't read "some philosophy?" Do you further imagine many of your corrospondents here haven't as well?

I have read all the great philosophers and I have a shelf full of their books. Punshhh is making unsubstantiated assumptions yet again.

Peterson · 27th April 2012, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Mother Teresa's final letters.

Nothing to add to the discussion but Mother Teresa was not an atheist. The darkness she experienced was not non-belief. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux had a similar experience from the time she entered the convent until her death. See this for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul

Skeptic Ginger · 27th April 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes it cannot be regarded as reliable evidence. One has to take it on good faith that it was an actual revelation and even then that it is not a delusion.

The evidence supports the delusion conclusion. Follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to make the evidence fit the conclusion you started with.

Originally Posted by punshhh

We don't need to, however a discussion like this should acknowledge that they might be there at least.

I don't. You can if you like. Do you find it important to acknowledge invisible unicorns and garage dragons as well? Science does not start with a baseless conclusion and look for evidence. The scientific process is successful. Ergo, I do not need to acknowledge the possibility of fictional beings as there is no evidence such beings are real and there is overwhelming evidence they are not.

Originally Posted by punshhh

These are inventions of human imagination and there is a scientific knowledge of their origin. Considering what exists out there beyond our ability to perceive is a genuine exploration. which until anything is detected will have to remain in the realm of philosophy.

False assumptions don't make an argument. You dopn't contemplate the Universe based on baseless imagination. Once you follow the evidence behind god beliefs everything is explained by the fiction hypothesis. 'People can imagine baseless things like invisible unicorns and dragons' is all you got.

You are using the fallacious argument that no proof gods don't exist is somehow evidence they might exist. It isn't.

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The evidence supports the delusion conclusion. Follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to make the evidence fit the conclusion you started with.

I don't. You can if you like. Do you find it important to acknowledge invisible unicorns and garage dragons as well? Science does not start with a baseless conclusion and look for evidence. The scientific process is successful. Ergo, I do not need to acknowledge the possibility of fictional beings as there is no evidence such beings are real and there is overwhelming evidence they are not.

False assumptions don't make an argument. You dopn't contemplate the Universe based on baseless imagination. Once you follow the evidence behind god beliefs everything is explained by the fiction hypothesis. 'People can imagine baseless things like invisible unicorns and dragons' is all you got.

Well said but I fear that it will fall on stony ground.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th April 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Well said but I fear that it will fall on stony ground.

Of course, but punshhh is not the only one reading the thread. Of course at this point it probably is only punshhh and the choir.

dafydd · 27th April 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Of course, but punshhh is not the only one reading the thread. Of course at this point it probably is only punshhh and the choir.

Yes, Limbo seems to be off on an extended vacation to the dark side of the Moon.

Dinwar · 27th April 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP.

No philosophy involved.

So your view of philosophy is "speculation about things for which there is no evidence"? I can't see how you can define it otherwise--we've established over and over in this thread that the believers participating agree there's no evidence for gods.

Quote:

He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish.

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks "philosophy" somehow renders logic meaningless has no business saying someone else looks foolish. Besides, you don't need strong arguments against the existence of gods. Even you demonstrate that--your definition cannot stand without the a priori suppositions that logic doesn't work, we can't perceive reality, and we can't limit our discussions of gods to that which we can talk about!

MattusMaximus · 27th April 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Your addendums, then... remove any and all barriers to allowing any and all ideas, no matter how contradictory, contraindicated, or otherwise infeasible, removing any and all serious value from said discussion. ETA: Such a discussion would be better held in a humor forum, honestly. At least then, people might really enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

How did you arrive at this definition?

It feels like you started with the mythological descriptions of Gods (the ones you don't believe it) and worked back to something that you think might be untestable and therefore can't be disproved.

Without the mythological Gods your God hypothesis doesn't exist.

Yup. This ^^^

There is no "hypothesis" to test based upon these criteria, because this collection of assertions is inherently untestable, either scientifically or philosophically, to begin with.

Which, as has already been stated, gives punshhh free reign to make **** up as he/she sees fit. Engaging in discourse with such a person is the purest folly.

Aridas · 27th April 2012, 09:33 PM

punshh, I have attempted to discuss things with you in good faith. I've been trying to deal with you as if you were, too. This is, unfortunately, going to be harsh criticism, much as it's intended to be constructive.

You have attempted to use logical fallacies, irrelevant arguments, redefined words, seemingly attempted to obfuscate the topic of discussion, seemingly purposefully took the posts of others in directions that were not at all indicated by the contents of the post, tried to support your desired outcome with completely contradictory arguments, and insulted the posters here.

Furthermore, you have either betrayed failures in your understanding of philosophy in general, science, and the philosophy involved in science, or you have betrayed dishonesty on your part.

You have attempted to propose an untestable and unfalsifiable definition of a "god" and ask for a scientific discussion, even after the faultiness of doing so was repeatedly pointed out. This is, perfectly obviously, impossible, given the nature of science. Not only that, but you did everything you could to remove any and all other means of evaluating the already blatantly insufficient definition that you presented, and somehow thought that it was still a valid topic for serious discussion.

punshh. I have no objection to you believing in a god. I have no objection to you believing in nearly anything that you want to believe, really. I do, very firmly, object to you using dishonest tactics and terrible arguments to attempt to argue anything. As far as I'm concerned, no topic or belief is worth such.

punshhh · 27th April 2012, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

No--there are ample neurological tests to indicate that we should view statements such as "I've experienced God" with some skepticism. Hallucinations aren't uncommon--just stay awake for a few days and you'll have one. Mine tend towards the bizzar (giant glass spiders and the like), but some people see saints and things. Further, most don't understand how the brain works. I understand paredolia to some extent, and audiodolia to a lesser degree, and that's enough to show that seeing cannot always be believing, nor can hearing. Then there are the liars--people like L. Ron Hubbard who claim to have mystical knowledge for material gain. This is more common than you think: look into the number of priests who are atheists, or Mother Teresa's final letters. Then there's the fact that if you tell children something is true constantly from the time they're born--and you can pick ANYTHING for this--a certain percentage will think they've found proof. It's a function of how a child's brain works.

Because there are so many errors that can occur with or without the person saying they experienced God knowing about it, any claim about any deity should be met with extreme skepticism. At minimum, evidence is required before we conclude that it's true.

Yes such caution is warranted. Although I wouldn't put quite that way myself.

Quote:

Your position, and the position of theists in general, is untenable. You obviously don't believe that EVERYONE who said they experienced God is telling the truth--the Nazi slogan ("God with us!") is enough to prove that--but without establishing a definition of the deity you want to discuss, and without evidence independent of personal, untestable and unverifiable experiences, there's simply no valid criteria for determining which experiences are real and which aren't. It boils down, eventually, to "People who agree with me are right; everyone else is wrong". It can't be otherwise--the ONLY criteria you have for evaluation of claims of experiencing gods are the claim and your personal biases. And that means that you're reaching a conclusion prior to gathering the evidence.

I am giving people who claim to have experienced god the benefit of the doubt, which I have already stated, for the purposes of discussing the issue. If we dismiss their claims to begin with there is little to work on when seeking to derive a suitable definition of god. We are left with the observations of nature which we have not covered yet.

Are you 100% certain that these people did not experience god?

Quote:

Dismissing an idea as insufficiently supported to warrant consideration IS NOT the same as saying the idea is wrong. I've explained the difference a number of times in this thread, and it's extremely annoying that you continue to persist in this flagrant falsehood.

I understand your distinction. I am merely taking a look at the reasoning implied by the god hypothesis, in the form of a discussion.

punshhh · 28th April 2012, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I think that's pretty darn good philosophy right there. If you have an explanation that works why add something that doesn't do anything and that you couldn't possibly know is there or not or even begin to explain or describe?

A much more practical philosophy than indulging in navel gazing whataboutery to try to imagine how a God might exist if it did without even knowing what a God is or what it does first.

I see, so because god (or something) cannot be explained or described. We might as well assume it doesn't exist?

For example, because we don't know what existed before the big bang. I assume that nothing existed.

punshhh · 28th April 2012, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

punshh, I have attempted to discuss things with you in good faith. I've been trying to deal with you as if you were, too. This is, unfortunately, going to be harsh criticism, much as it's intended to be constructive.

You have attempted to use logical fallacies, irrelevant arguments, redefined words, seemingly attempted to obfuscate the topic of discussion, seemingly purposefully took the posts of others in directions that were not at all indicated by the contents of the post, tried to support your desired outcome with completely contradictory arguments, and insulted the posters here.

Furthermore, you have either betrayed failures in your understanding of philosophy in general, science, and the philosophy involved in science, or you have betrayed dishonesty on your part.

You have attempted to propose an untestable and unfalsifiable definition of a "god" and ask for a scientific discussion, even after the faultiness of doing so was repeatedly pointed out. This is, perfectly obviously, impossible, given the nature of science. Not only that, but you did everything you could to remove any and all other means of evaluating the already blatantly insufficient definition that you presented, and somehow thought that it was still a valid topic for serious discussion.

punshh. I have no objection to you believing in a god. I have no objection to you believing in nearly anything that you want to believe, really. I do, very firmly, object to you using dishonest tactics and terrible arguments to attempt to argue anything. As far as I'm concerned, no topic or belief is worth such.

I appologise for not engaging with all you had to say. In the rough and tumble of debate I was focussing on the pertinent points. I will happily go over the points given time.

punshhh · 28th April 2012, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Yup. This ^^^

There is no "hypothesis" to test based upon these criteria, because this collection of assertions is inherently untestable, either scientifically or philosophically, to begin with.

Which, as has already been stated, gives punshhh free reign to make **** up as he/she sees fit. Engaging in discourse with such a person is the purest folly.

Yes I am aware of this. But do you think one can consider the issue seriously without acknowledging our human limitations?

I find it just as frustrating as anyone else that such considerations make any realistic speculation of any real gods that may or may not exist impossible.

Perhaps the real issue here is what Richard Dawkins is intending with his hypothesis.

punshhh · 28th April 2012, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So your view of philosophy is "speculation about things for which there is no evidence"? I can't see how you can define it otherwise--we've established over and over in this thread that the believers participating agree there's no evidence for gods.

One can make observations of nature to see if there is agency equating to the agency a god might have.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks "philosophy" somehow renders logic meaningless has no business saying someone else looks foolish. Besides, you don't need strong arguments against the existence of gods. Even you demonstrate that--your definition cannot stand without the a priori suppositions that logic doesn't work, we can't perceive reality, and we can't limit our discussions of gods to that which we can talk about!

I am acknowledging the metaphysical position that in questions regarding existence itself, one must a some point consider that all that we understand as reality, may be inaccurate, illusory or a confection.

I would not suggest such an approach on any other issue.

punshhh · 28th April 2012, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The evidence supports the delusion conclusion. Follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to make the evidence fit the conclusion you started with.

I don't. You can if you like. Do you find it important to acknowledge invisible unicorns and garage dragons as well? Science does not start with a baseless conclusion and look for evidence. The scientific process is successful. Ergo, I do not need to acknowledge the possibility of fictional beings as there is no evidence such beings are real and there is overwhelming evidence they are not.

False assumptions don't make an argument. You dopn't contemplate the Universe based on baseless imagination. Once you follow the evidence behind god beliefs everything is explained by the fiction hypothesis. 'People can imagine baseless things like invisible unicorns and dragons' is all you got.

You are using the fallacious argument that no proof gods don't exist is somehow evidence they might exist. It isn't.

Yes I am fully aware of your views on this. I agree with your fiction hypothesis.

However I am interested in if there is actually a god out there. In which case anything humanity has to say on the issue is of little importance, because how could they possibly know the truth.

Also there are people of faith who's consideration of god and the greater existence (than our local known existence) is far more subtle and sophisticated than is generally considered in such a fiction hypothesis.

Some may consider them deluded, some may consider them visionary, who knows? What has science to say about it?

JoeBentley · 28th April 2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I see, so because god (or something) cannot be explained or described. We might as well assume it doesn't exist?

You are still (delibertly) missing the point.

It's not the God can't be described. Description is meaningless. You can describe all sorts of stuff, doesn't even begin to make it probable or meaningful in any way.

Here. "A square circle." There that's a perfectly valid description. It's also completely and totally meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion.

It's simple. Your constant appeals to metaphysical hair splitting accomplish nothing.

Okay so some all powerful being could have blinked the universe into existence 7 seconds ago and created all our memories of a time before that. We could all be brains in jars or in the matrix or butterflies dreaming we're men or in a straight jacket having a delusion or what ever Zen Koan nonsense you want to spew out.

What possible intellectual value is gained from this! What could this sort of pot stoner mental tripe possibly tell us about the world. If you're right and we have no hope of understanding the world because of some disconnet between our senses and reality, if there is some cosmic force out there just screwing with us, if our very ability to perceive the universe and bring in any useful information is uncertain then... what? Where do we go from here? What possible avenue does this give us for any intellectual advancement? And before you say anything "more navel gazing" isn't the correct answer.

That's the problem with Solipsisism. The second you bring it up the conversation is over and all we can do is either walk away and give up or just mentally masturbate. It's the ultimate thought terminating cliche.

I've pointed out again and again how hypocritical this is. You're sitting at a computer. Probably in a chair. In a house. Typing on a keyboard. Wearing clothes. You drive to work in a car or rider there in a bus. These are all real objects you are interacting with without freaking out and refusing to go any further because you're hung up worrying about the possibility that it might all be in your head. You live in the same world as the rest of us. You know what reality is and how to recognize it so stop pretending like you don't.

Living in reality 23 hours a day then questioning base reality only to shut down conversations about things you don't want to talk about is just bad form.

As I've said before if you throw a rock a solipist's head they still duck. Until you sit there and let the rock hit you in the face while questioning whether or not the rock and your face are real, you shutting down conversation by bringing it up is self serving B.S.

ETA:

Long story short. What responses are you actually expecting? If you counter "Belief in X is illogical because there is no evidence" with "But we can't be sure our senses are showing us the truth" where do you expect the conversation to go?

Because other then expecting us all to throw up our hands and go "You're right! Nothing is certain! Believe all the woo you wish!" (which to be blunt is obviously what you are going for) I don't see one.

Last of the Fraggles · 28th April 2012, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

In which case anything humanity has to say on the issue is of little importance

Also there are people of faith who's consideration of god and the greater existence (than our local known existence) is far more subtle and sophisticated

Unless these people are not human then their considerations and opinions are of little importance as per your first sentence.

Basically if what you say is true then either there are no gods in which case we can never know anything about them and people are simply making them up or there are gods that we can never know anything about in which case we can never know anything about them and people who claim to know them are simply making them up.

We can guess if we like, but there's no value in the guessing because there is nothing upon which to judge if one guess is any better than another.

So either Gods don't exist, or they exist in a way that renders the word exist meaningless. Even calling them Gods at that point is silly, because we have no idea what they are. The definition of the word God at that point becomes 'something that I know nothing about, that does nothing, that has no properties I can define, that I cannot possibly know anything about or ever experience'

27th April 2012, 06:00 AM	#483
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by stokes234 As soon as you take these, there's no point in discussing anything. Quite, you can discuss the implications though. Its called philosophy. Quote: Let's say you "win" the following discussion on whether god exists, but under the conditions you ascribe I have not claimed that god exists. Quote: - how can we be sure we're really discussing philosophy on the internet (and that you've won), and we're not actually playing space-football in a 4-dimensional hypercube in the centre of jupiter? I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios. Quote: If you can't accept that we are capable of correctly observing reality, then you've thrown everything out the window and any debate is impossible. Are you claiming that humanity is capable of correctly observing reality? I think you'll find that there are quite a few posters who realise that we cannot make this assumption.
	Last edited by punshhh; 27th April 2012 at 06:06 AM.

27th April 2012, 06:03 AM	#484
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by punshhh So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality. Better then you constantly bringing up the possibility that there is no reality. Seriously where do you expect the discussion to go after you bring up solipsism? All we can do is sit here on our hands after you play the "Brain in a jar" card. Quote: What evidence? You're kidding, right?
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

27th April 2012, 06:05 AM	#485
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by punshhh What woo? Because it seems that in every discussion of woo someone, as often as not you, does this, play the "You can't know everything, therefore woo" or some variation thereof, card.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

27th April 2012, 06:06 AM	#486
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by punshhh I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios. So something someone just made up now is an obvious figment of the imagination, but something someone made up a few thousand years ago and wrote down in a book of parables is something we can't question until we prove we're not in a Matrix scenario.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

27th April 2012, 06:14 AM	#489
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by punshhh Quite, you can discuss the implications though. Its called philosophy. Philosophy has useful implications. For example, discussion of ethics can lead to better informed decisions on how to treat other people. Please list some useful results of the discussion of "what if nothing is real". Originally Posted by punshhh I have not claimed that god exists. Good. Originally Posted by punshhh I know this is not what we're doing because you are describing a figment of your imagination. It is well documented by science what is the origin of such scenarios. Under your ridiculous assumptions, the science used to well document these origins could all just be us incorrectly observing reality. Which is why it's useless. Originally Posted by punshhh Are you claiming that humanity is capable of correctly observing reality? Yes. By correctly observing reality, we've made thousands of useful scientific advances. Originally Posted by punshhh I think you'll find that there are quite a few posters who realise that we cannot make this assumption. I'd be interested to see what evidence they provide to support this belief.
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

27th April 2012, 05:54 AM	#481
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by JoeBentley "Layman" is rapidly moving up my "Loaded Words that Woo Slingers Love Yet Have No Clue What Actually Means" top 10 list. What woo?

27th April 2012, 05:55 AM	#482
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd Did you use philosophy to explore the fairies and pixies in your foliage? Only a camera.

27th April 2012, 06:09 AM	#487
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Because it seems that in every discussion of woo someone, as often as not you, does this, play the "You can't know everything, therefore woo" or some variation thereof, card. What woo am I peddling?

27th April 2012, 06:12 AM	#488
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Better then you constantly bringing up the possibility that there is no reality. Seriously where do you expect the discussion to go after you bring up solipsism? All we can do is sit here on our hands after you play the "Brain in a jar" card. I don't know where you came up with "there is no reality" and "you bring up solipsism". Perhaps you have something to say about Dawkin's hypothesis now?

27th April 2012, 06:17 AM	#490
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Originally Posted by punshhh What woo am I peddling? Mystical woo about unknown unknown entities influencing the toss of a coin at critical points in human history. Also giving credence to Limbo when he states that he has danced on the dark side of the Moon.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 27th April 2012 at 06:23 AM.

27th April 2012, 06:21 AM	#491
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by punshhh What woo am I peddling? You're more of a Woo Apologist then a direct peddler. It seems there's a good chance if someone makes a reasonable skeptical statement about a claim delivered without sufficient evidence, we'll soon find you in the discussion claiming "We can't know reality" or "Trust our sense" or other such solipsistic claptrap. Originally Posted by punshhh I don't know where you came up with "there is no reality" and "you bring up solipsism". I have no intention of playing this game. You know full well the sort of arguments you use. Your appeals to some level of hairsplitting metaphysical doubt as to our base perception of how we perceive reality add nothing to intellectual discussions. Quote: Perhaps you have something to say about Dawkin's hypothesis now? Why? It can't compete with your metaphysical hairsplitting. "Water is wet" can be dismissed by the Brain in a Jar argument just as easily. If you want to count that as "win" so be it, but I ask you to take a step back and honestly think about where depending on such a dodge to win and/or get out of arguments really gets you.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

27th April 2012, 07:05 AM	#492
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by punshhh If you want to describe religious doctrine as fairy stories thats fine with me provided you don't later conflate the two. "something you think can't be disproved", now who's making up fairy stories? Yes, along with many other scenarios. I suggest to put that back where you pulled it from and suggest some more suitable definitions to discuss. How did you arrive at your definition then? Other than 'just making it up'? What criteria was your definition meeting? What was it trying to explain? [quote] Perhaps you should take a look at what people say they believe and then we can progress past the kindergarten. Great, this is what I was suggesting should be compared with the definition. You say none, fine how do you know that and have you considered the possibilities by which you might be wrong? [quote] There is nothing which needs a God to explain it, therefore inventing a God is a pointless waste of time. Reality works just fine without the need for a God. There is no evidence to point us to God. There is nothing upon which to base a definition or description. There is only imagination of 'what a God might be if I wanted one to exist' and 'how can I define something that can't be tested so I can prove a point'. Quote: So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality. I regard people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken for the very specific reasons that there is absolutely no reason to believe they are correct and every reason to believe that they are not. We know that people are wrong all the time about all manner of things. If we're talking about retellings of ancient myths handed down through generations then even more so. Quote: I would suggest that whether the myths are discredited or not. To dismiss them is to presume that God does not exist, without evidence If the myth can be dismissed it can be dismissed. If 'God' does not remain when we dismiss the myth then bad luck for 'God'. If a lunatic claims to have seen a green elephant on his visit to the surface of the moon and we can show he wasn't on the moon then we don't need to keep searching for green elephants. We really really really don't need to start discussing how maybe green elephants are maybe invisible, hiding green elephants that only reveal themselves to certain people at certain times, and we really really really really really really don't need to start wondering whether reality is all an illusion and maybe we are just thoughts in the mind of a giant metaphysical green elephant. Sometimes there is no green elephant and sometimes there's just loonies making **** up.

27th April 2012, 07:36 AM	#493
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Reality works fine punshhh, why do we need an unknown unknown god who seems impossible to trace?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

27th April 2012, 07:51 AM	#494
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,931	Originally Posted by punshhh So you regard the people who claim to have experienced God as deluded or mistaken, for no reason. Just because it doesn't fit your preferred explanation of reality. No--there are ample neurological tests to indicate that we should view statements such as "I've experienced God" with some skepticism. Hallucinations aren't uncommon--just stay awake for a few days and you'll have one. Mine tend towards the bizzar (giant glass spiders and the like), but some people see saints and things. Further, most don't understand how the brain works. I understand paredolia to some extent, and audiodolia to a lesser degree, and that's enough to show that seeing cannot always be believing, nor can hearing. Then there are the liars--people like L. Ron Hubbard who claim to have mystical knowledge for material gain. This is more common than you think: look into the number of priests who are atheists, or Mother Teresa's final letters. Then there's the fact that if you tell children something is true constantly from the time they're born--and you can pick ANYTHING for this--a certain percentage will think they've found proof. It's a function of how a child's brain works. Because there are so many errors that can occur with or without the person saying they experienced God knowing about it, any claim about any deity should be met with extreme skepticism. At minimum, evidence is required before we conclude that it's true. Your position, and the position of theists in general, is untenable. You obviously don't believe that EVERYONE who said they experienced God is telling the truth--the Nazi slogan ("God with us!") is enough to prove that--but without establishing a definition of the deity you want to discuss, and without evidence independent of personal, untestable and unverifiable experiences, there's simply no valid criteria for determining which experiences are real and which aren't. It boils down, eventually, to "People who agree with me are right; everyone else is wrong". It can't be otherwise--the ONLY criteria you have for evaluation of claims of experiencing gods are the claim and your personal biases. And that means that you're reaching a conclusion prior to gathering the evidence. Quote: To dismiss them is to presume that God does not exist, without evidence Dismissing an idea as insufficiently supported to warrant consideration IS NOT the same as saying the idea is wrong. I've explained the difference a number of times in this thread, and it's extremely annoying that you continue to persist in this flagrant falsehood.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,931	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

27th April 2012, 07:55 AM	#495
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd Reality works fine punshhh, why do we need an unknown unknown god who seems impossible to trace? You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP. No philosophy involved. Richard Dawkins presented some interesting ideas regarding the genone. But once he stepped into the debate around atheism and religion. His reasoning was little better than what has just been demonstrated in this thread. He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish. Or will anyone put one of his more thought about arguments forward? to demonstrate his more comprehensive appreciation of the subject of gods?

27th April 2012, 08:02 AM	#496
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,756	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes and what is its origin? and how is it generated? and what is it? It is a mystery to us with our thick lensed rose tinted glasses. Do you think you can take off those glasses and gain a clear look at reality?

27th April 2012, 08:03 AM	#497
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Originally Posted by punshhh You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP. No philosophy involved. Richard Dawkins presented some interesting ideas regarding the genone. But once he stepped into the debate around atheism and religion. His reasoning was little better than what has just been demonstrated in this thread. He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish. Or will anyone put one of his more thought about arguments forward? to demonstrate his more comprehensive appreciation of the subject of gods? Why should philosophy be involved? Who needs philosophy to tell them that gods are a human invention and have no effect on reality? I don't think that you know what the purpose of philosophy is. You appear to be redefining words again. When you say philosophy you mean a mixture of theology and mysticism.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 27th April 2012 at 08:07 AM.

27th April 2012, 08:14 AM	#498
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,756	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes and what is its origin? and how is it generated? and what is it? It is a mystery to us with our thick lensed rose tinted glasses. Originally Posted by punshhh In laymans terms what he said is fine. But when you dig a little deeper everything that science is telling us about existence is only about how it appears to behave. Not what it is or what actually exists behind the appearances. Existence itself is a mystery to science. Yes I agree when it comes to any practical application. However throughout history people have on ocassion realised the potential of the human mind to develop the vision of insight. Such visionaries have developed this capacity and have come up with ideas which may or may not point in the direction of a deeper truth and understanding of existence. It does of course remain within the realm of speculation. So your whole message is that existence is a mystery and that we're all groping in the fog, not understanding the actual reality around us except for a select few that seek to understand the universe by looking in their own minds. Trying to understand the world by looking into the human mind is backwards.

27th April 2012, 08:19 AM	#499
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,756	Originally Posted by punshhh As usual I'm pointing out that we are not in the position to make pronouncements on the existence or not, or behavior of gods. Why are gods unquestionable? Really looks like just another way of saying GWIMW.

27th April 2012, 08:20 AM	#500
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by dafydd Why should philosophy be involved? Who needs philosophy to tell them that gods are a human invention and have no effect on reality? And this in a nutshell is the issue. Why are you bringing this into this discussion? Would you run into an operating room during open heart surgery and ask the doctor why he is bothering trying to fix the guy's sticking aortic valve when he isn't certain the guy, his heart, his scalpel and the whole world aren't just a delusion?
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

27th April 2012, 08:23 AM	#501
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by punshhh He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish. Do you honestly imagine Dawkins hasn't read "some philosophy?" Do you further imagine many of your correspondents here haven't as well?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Last edited by Resume; 27th April 2012 at 08:33 AM. Reason: spelling jeez

27th April 2012, 08:26 AM	#502
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by punshhh You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP. No philosophy involved. I think that's pretty darn good philosophy right there. If you have an explanation that works why add something that doesn't do anything and that you couldn't possibly know is there or not or even begin to explain or describe? A much more practical philosophy than indulging in navel gazing whataboutery to try to imagine how a God might exist if it did without even knowing what a God is or what it does first.

27th April 2012, 08:28 AM	#503
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,756	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes I'm happy to do this. I have offered a definition to work with, I was waiting for someone to agree on the definition before proceeding. Lets see, it looks as though I can contextualise the definition now. I suggest for discussion a god which is; 1, Intelligent to at least to the level or above of humanity. 2, Is the creator or origin of known existence. 3, Interacts in some way with known existence. 4, Is not omnipotent/present/scient/benevolent. Also I have pointed out some of the potential limitations of humanity in addressing this. 1, We can't rely on our kind of reason or logic being accurate. 2, We can't rely on the observation that known existence is as it appears. 3, We can't presume to limit the abilities of this god to what we perceive as being possible or not. This should be enough to begin a discussion, unless anyone would like to suggest any alterations or additions. It's Jref which seems to be giving philosophy a bad name, as has been acknowledged by a number of posters. I suggest for discussion a god which is; (tsig in parenthesis) 1, Intelligent to at least to the level or above of humanity. (a great big human) 2, Is the creator or origin of known existence. (who took a crap) 3, Interacts in some way with known existence.(flushed it down the Cosmic Crapper) 4, Is not omnipotent/present/scient/benevolent.(can't spell)

27th April 2012, 08:31 AM	#504
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Originally Posted by Resume Do you honestly imagine Dawkins hasn't read "some philosophy?" Do you further imagine many of your corrospondents here haven't as well? I have read all the great philosophers and I have a shelf full of their books. Punshhh is making unsubstantiated assumptions yet again.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

27th April 2012, 08:31 AM	#505
Peterson Scholar Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 119	Originally Posted by Dinwar Mother Teresa's final letters. Nothing to add to the discussion but Mother Teresa was not an atheist. The darkness she experienced was not non-belief. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux had a similar experience from the time she entered the convent until her death. See this for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul
Peterson Scholar Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 119

27th April 2012, 09:31 AM	#506
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,553	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes it cannot be regarded as reliable evidence. One has to take it on good faith that it was an actual revelation and even then that it is not a delusion. The evidence supports the delusion conclusion. Follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to make the evidence fit the conclusion you started with. Originally Posted by punshhh We don't need to, however a discussion like this should acknowledge that they might be there at least. I don't. You can if you like. Do you find it important to acknowledge invisible unicorns and garage dragons as well? Science does not start with a baseless conclusion and look for evidence. The scientific process is successful. Ergo, I do not need to acknowledge the possibility of fictional beings as there is no evidence such beings are real and there is overwhelming evidence they are not. Originally Posted by punshhh These are inventions of human imagination and there is a scientific knowledge of their origin. Considering what exists out there beyond our ability to perceive is a genuine exploration. which until anything is detected will have to remain in the realm of philosophy. False assumptions don't make an argument. You dopn't contemplate the Universe based on baseless imagination. Once you follow the evidence behind god beliefs everything is explained by the fiction hypothesis. 'People can imagine baseless things like invisible unicorns and dragons' is all you got. You are using the fallacious argument that no proof gods don't exist is somehow evidence they might exist. It isn't.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 27th April 2012 at 09:35 AM.*

27th April 2012, 09:33 AM	#507
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The evidence supports the delusion conclusion. Follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to make the evidence fit the conclusion you started with. I don't. You can if you like. Do you find it important to acknowledge invisible unicorns and garage dragons as well? Science does not start with a baseless conclusion and look for evidence. The scientific process is successful. Ergo, I do not need to acknowledge the possibility of fictional beings as there is no evidence such beings are real and there is overwhelming evidence they are not. False assumptions don't make an argument. You dopn't contemplate the Universe based on baseless imagination. Once you follow the evidence behind god beliefs everything is explained by the fiction hypothesis. 'People can imagine baseless things like invisible unicorns and dragons' is all you got. Well said but I fear that it will fall on stony ground.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

27th April 2012, 09:37 AM	#508
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,553	Originally Posted by dafydd Well said but I fear that it will fall on stony ground. Of course, but punshhh is not the only one reading the thread. Of course at this point it probably is only punshhh and the choir.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th April 2012, 09:42 AM	#509
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,467	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Of course, but punshhh is not the only one reading the thread. Of course at this point it probably is only punshhh and the choir. Yes, Limbo seems to be off on an extended vacation to the dark side of the Moon.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

27th April 2012, 11:09 AM	#510
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,931	Originally Posted by punshhh You've pretty much summed up the position of posters here on the question in the OP. No philosophy involved. So your view of philosophy is "speculation about things for which there is no evidence"? I can't see how you can define it otherwise--we've established over and over in this thread that the believers participating agree there's no evidence for gods. Quote: He should read some philosophy and furnish himself with some stronger arguments and then he wouldn't come across as so foolish. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks "philosophy" somehow renders logic meaningless has no business saying someone else looks foolish. Besides, you don't need strong arguments against the existence of gods. Even you demonstrate that--your definition cannot stand without the a priori suppositions that logic doesn't work, we can't perceive reality, and we can't limit our discussions of gods to that which we can talk about!
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,931	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

27th April 2012, 08:00 PM	#511
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Aridas Your addendums, then... remove any and all barriers to allowing any and all ideas, no matter how contradictory, contraindicated, or otherwise infeasible, removing any and all serious value from said discussion. ETA: Such a discussion would be better held in a humor forum, honestly. At least then, people might really enjoy it. Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles How did you arrive at this definition? It feels like you started with the mythological descriptions of Gods (the ones you don't believe it) and worked back to something that you think might be untestable and therefore can't be disproved. Without the mythological Gods your God hypothesis doesn't exist. Yup. This ^^^ There is no "hypothesis" to test based upon these criteria, because this collection of assertions is inherently untestable, either scientifically or philosophically, to begin with. Which, as has already been stated, gives punshhh free reign to make **** up as he/she sees fit. Engaging in discourse with such a person is the purest folly.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 27th April 2012 at 08:12 PM.

27th April 2012, 09:33 PM	#512
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	punshh, I have attempted to discuss things with you in good faith. I've been trying to deal with you as if you were, too. This is, unfortunately, going to be harsh criticism, much as it's intended to be constructive. You have attempted to use logical fallacies, irrelevant arguments, redefined words, seemingly attempted to obfuscate the topic of discussion, seemingly purposefully took the posts of others in directions that were not at all indicated by the contents of the post, tried to support your desired outcome with completely contradictory arguments, and insulted the posters here. Furthermore, you have either betrayed failures in your understanding of philosophy in general, science, and the philosophy involved in science, or you have betrayed dishonesty on your part. You have attempted to propose an untestable and unfalsifiable definition of a "god" and ask for a scientific discussion, even after the faultiness of doing so was repeatedly pointed out. This is, perfectly obviously, impossible, given the nature of science. Not only that, but you did everything you could to remove any and all other means of evaluating the already blatantly insufficient definition that you presented, and somehow thought that it was still a valid topic for serious discussion. punshh. I have no objection to you believing in a god. I have no objection to you believing in nearly anything that you want to believe, really. I do, very firmly, object to you using dishonest tactics and terrible arguments to attempt to argue anything. As far as I'm concerned, no topic or belief is worth such.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

27th April 2012, 11:53 PM	#513
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Dinwar No--there are ample neurological tests to indicate that we should view statements such as "I've experienced God" with some skepticism. Hallucinations aren't uncommon--just stay awake for a few days and you'll have one. Mine tend towards the bizzar (giant glass spiders and the like), but some people see saints and things. Further, most don't understand how the brain works. I understand paredolia to some extent, and audiodolia to a lesser degree, and that's enough to show that seeing cannot always be believing, nor can hearing. Then there are the liars--people like L. Ron Hubbard who claim to have mystical knowledge for material gain. This is more common than you think: look into the number of priests who are atheists, or Mother Teresa's final letters. Then there's the fact that if you tell children something is true constantly from the time they're born--and you can pick ANYTHING for this--a certain percentage will think they've found proof. It's a function of how a child's brain works. Because there are so many errors that can occur with or without the person saying they experienced God knowing about it, any claim about any deity should be met with extreme skepticism. At minimum, evidence is required before we conclude that it's true. Yes such caution is warranted. Although I wouldn't put quite that way myself. Quote: Your position, and the position of theists in general, is untenable. You obviously don't believe that EVERYONE who said they experienced God is telling the truth--the Nazi slogan ("God with us!") is enough to prove that--but without establishing a definition of the deity you want to discuss, and without evidence independent of personal, untestable and unverifiable experiences, there's simply no valid criteria for determining which experiences are real and which aren't. It boils down, eventually, to "People who agree with me are right; everyone else is wrong". It can't be otherwise--the ONLY criteria you have for evaluation of claims of experiencing gods are the claim and your personal biases. And that means that you're reaching a conclusion prior to gathering the evidence. I am giving people who claim to have experienced god the benefit of the doubt, which I have already stated, for the purposes of discussing the issue. If we dismiss their claims to begin with there is little to work on when seeking to derive a suitable definition of god. We are left with the observations of nature which we have not covered yet. Are you 100% certain that these people did not experience god? Quote: Dismissing an idea as insufficiently supported to warrant consideration IS NOT the same as saying the idea is wrong. I've explained the difference a number of times in this thread, and it's extremely annoying that you continue to persist in this flagrant falsehood. I understand your distinction. I am merely taking a look at the reasoning implied by the god hypothesis, in the form of a discussion.

28th April 2012, 12:01 AM	#514
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles I think that's pretty darn good philosophy right there. If you have an explanation that works why add something that doesn't do anything and that you couldn't possibly know is there or not or even begin to explain or describe? A much more practical philosophy than indulging in navel gazing whataboutery to try to imagine how a God might exist if it did without even knowing what a God is or what it does first. I see, so because god (or something) cannot be explained or described. We might as well assume it doesn't exist? For example, because we don't know what existed before the big bang. I assume that nothing existed.

28th April 2012, 12:16 AM	#515
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Aridas punshh, I have attempted to discuss things with you in good faith. I've been trying to deal with you as if you were, too. This is, unfortunately, going to be harsh criticism, much as it's intended to be constructive. You have attempted to use logical fallacies, irrelevant arguments, redefined words, seemingly attempted to obfuscate the topic of discussion, seemingly purposefully took the posts of others in directions that were not at all indicated by the contents of the post, tried to support your desired outcome with completely contradictory arguments, and insulted the posters here. Furthermore, you have either betrayed failures in your understanding of philosophy in general, science, and the philosophy involved in science, or you have betrayed dishonesty on your part. You have attempted to propose an untestable and unfalsifiable definition of a "god" and ask for a scientific discussion, even after the faultiness of doing so was repeatedly pointed out. This is, perfectly obviously, impossible, given the nature of science. Not only that, but you did everything you could to remove any and all other means of evaluating the already blatantly insufficient definition that you presented, and somehow thought that it was still a valid topic for serious discussion. punshh. I have no objection to you believing in a god. I have no objection to you believing in nearly anything that you want to believe, really. I do, very firmly, object to you using dishonest tactics and terrible arguments to attempt to argue anything. As far as I'm concerned, no topic or belief is worth such. I appologise for not engaging with all you had to say. In the rough and tumble of debate I was focussing on the pertinent points. I will happily go over the points given time.