View Single Post
Old 04-10-2007, 02:16 PM   #110
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 21 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
You are dense.
You drink your own pee.

I am saying that if your conclusion is ever found to be true, then your god would have to be acknowledged by science.
For my conclusion to be "found to be true", it would have to be constrained by the boundaries of naturalism. If we could use natural law to prove the existence of the supernatural, it wouldn't be supernatural at all then, would it? What you're arguing is inherently self-contradicting.

Further, if your god is a logical necessity, as you say it is, then science should have already endorsed your theory.
Take #5,697,678: I did not say God's is existence is a logical necessity, only that a cause not contained within our universe was necessary because the universe cannot be self-causing or self-perpetuating.

I had asked you if you could figure out the common thread between your god hypothesis, string hypothesis and the multiverse hypothesis but apparently you can't so I'll spell it out: they are all in principle unknowable.
In principle, they cannot be observed because we're talking about things like parallel universes (i.e., supernatural phenomena) . But String Theory does not just come out of some scientist's butt. It uses observation of observable phenomena, theoretical equations and logical inference to attempt to unify the disparate fields of physics.

You're correct to assert that there cannot be "positive" evidence of supernatural phenomena. But if logical inference from observation cannot be used to better understand our universe, if "positive" (i.e., naturalistic) evidence is all we have to rely on, perhaps you'd care to explain why there has been so much interest in String Theory for the past 50 years. String Theorists are searching for parallel dimensions, supernatural phenomena. Why would their inquiry of extrinsic phenomena be based solely on their ability to

This really all goes back to a fundamental difference of perspective. You believe that naturalistically affirmed evidence is the only manner by which we can understand the world. If it can't be observed, it doesn't exist (or, at least, it is exceedingly improbably and might as well not exist). But "positive" evidence can only tell us so much about the universe. There is much about the universe that positive evidence simply fails to account for – the origin of the universe, for example.

But yeah, I suppose I'd take the word of a guy who doesn't even know how to use a dictionary to answer a completely "pointless dig" that he started.

If your god can't be examined logically or scientifically, then how can we conclude from science and logic that it exists?
We can't "conclude". I did not suggest we could, and repeatedly stated that we cannot make conclusive claims about these things. I've spent post after post correcting you on this misunderstanding. I'm not sure how many different ways I can phrase it.

But the fact that we can't make conclusive claims does not mean that we can't see a good reason why it should exist. Our entire universe spontaneously pops into existence literally out of nothing. No natural phenomena ("positive evidence") can explain how this may have happened. All such phenomena can help us to learn is what is already within the universe and how it works.

If the universe existed infinitely, I suppose I'd find your arguments much more persuasive. But it's widely agreed upon that the universe had a finite beginning and will have a finite end. As long as the greatest question of all remains unanswered, people will have faith. That question is: why did the universe come into existence at all?

Yeah, there have been numerous studies (double blind, the whole nine) which have indicated that there is zero effect for prayer. If, in fact, you do believe that prayer works then your more deluded than I thought.
Again, this get's back to the core fallacy in your claim, which is that you are using science and logic to conclude your god's existence...
For the billionth time, I am not "concluding" that God exists. As long as you continue to base your entire refutation on this straw man of yours, we'll get nowhere. I believe that God's existence is likely.

The point is that--unlike your god--we have positive evidence for dinosaurs. That I can't prove that they aren't extinct is a complete non-sequitor--no one is talking about proving a negative. Do try and keep up.
It's a lesson in logical inference, not proving a negative. Do try and keep up.

You want it both ways. If its fundamentally (or intrinsically) beyond our understanding then how are you using science to understand it?
We are not understanding it fully or directly. We're seeing reason as to why it might, or should exist, much like quantum physicists assume that dark matter exists. They can't observe or measure dark matter, but they logically infer that it exists because there is reason to believe it should exist.

Acknowledging limitations is not faith anything, Mike. The fact that there are things that are unknowable says nothing to the existence of anything. This is just another conclusion you're drawing from your fallacious reasoning.
Nic, you just don't get it. As long as there are unanswered – and indeed unanswerable questions about our universe and our place in it, people will have faith.

Faith explains nothing.
It is not the purpose of faith to explain things scientifically. You're arguing with someone else here, not me.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-10-2007 at 02:19 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote