You did not answer all my questions, but you gave me one tantalizing challenge that I can't resist, so I am responding. I will most likely continue to respond as long as you continue addressing my questions. However, I will not enter into any new territory as long as you continue to ignore the past and future challenges you don't like.
Their magical beliefs are. Kind of like Newton's belief in the Philosopher's Stone.
Okay, this is where we started. If you can compartmentalize Newton's (and other scientists') religious views from his/their intelligence, why can you not do the same for the posters on this board? You initially and repeatedly called the religious posters here "stupid" with no qualifications.
They didn't even provide any details on the general population study so I ignored it. They didn't state how many agnostics and theists there were.
Disbelief and
doubt covers both atheists and agnostics, leaving 39.3% believers.
Where were you born? I can guess with an extremely high rate of accuracy with this little bit of information. That should tell you something about religion.
This is the claim that really intrigued me. If you get it right, you have to tell me how you did it because I find the idea fascinating. I was born in Burbank, California, USA. If you don't promise to tell me how, I won't tell you whether or not you're right!
http://www.hillmanweb.com/reason/inspiration/einstein.html
First, thanks for making it clicky. Second, thanks for providing it. Okay, down to brass tacks. I repeat that there is only one phrase in the letter that challenges what I've said about Einstein -- that is why I wanted to see the phrase in context. This is the phrase:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknessAfter reading the entire letter, I have to conclude that it remains a troubling phrase for me. I have no difficulty conceding this because I am never interested in defending my position at all costs. I am only interested in truth. If these were the only words of Einstein I had to go on, I would conclude that he did not believe in a God of any kind. However, I've been interested in him for a long time and am currently reading an excellent biography (which covers his religious orientation). In it, there is reference on more than one occasion to one of his most famous quotes: "God does not roll dice." I have come across that quote many times -- the first time was when Stephen Hawking referenced it in
A Brief History of Time. I have also read other Einstein God quotes. All I can say is that the quote you provided does convince me to keep an open mind on the subject, but it does not convince me to change my ideas about Einstein's beliefs at this time. It is one quote. It is the rare person who outlines his position in its entirety every time a certain subject comes up. He also may have changed his beliefs at various stages in his life. Until I know more, my position stands but is open to new info and conclusions.
Atheists don't believe in "designer gods" (whatever that is).
Where in that quote does Einstein call himself an atheist?
I said that the general population of Europe is more atheistic than America's; you said that I didn't provide any data; I provide data and now you switch to question to European scientists rather than the general population...
It is not me who has switched the question. It is you. Here is your original statement in full:
The rates are surely even higher today, and almost certainly higher from European scientists, seeing as how the western European general population is much more atheistic than AmericaTo which I replied, "You're awfully sure and certain for someone who isn't giving data."
I think it's pretty clear from my repetition of your words "sure(ly)" and "certain(ly)" that I was referring to your statement that you were "sure" the rates were higher for American scientists today and "certain" they were higher for European scientists.
So, again, how did your link address what you were so sure and certain of?
You see, there is this thing called natural selection in which organisms with more desirable traits reproduce more, and thus those traits take over the population. Humans are social animals, so humans that got along with each other tended to survive more and pass on their genes. Society enforces the idea of justice via rule of law and the like. It really isn't that difficult. Petty attempts at 'gotcha' questions typically aren't too successful. I'm guessing your explanation is it was magically implanted into our brains?
How do you know that natural selection exists? How do you know that humans who got along with each other tended to survive?
I never ask Gotcha questions. I loathe Gotcha questions. I ask questions to find out if people who make definitive statements without explanation know what they are talking about. Why do you think this was a Gotcha question?
Btw, you are a bad guesser.
Definition of substantiated: "Provide evidence to support or prove the truth of."
What evidence would you need to see that would support or prove the existence of a supernatural event?
This can best be summed up in Carl Sagan's statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence in the case I presented?
There are more variables at work here. How much evidence do the scientists have to support their conclusions? Do the classical musicians have evidence to support their view, or do they just have faith?
The scientists have the same level of evidence that atheist scientists have to support their conclusions. The musicians have the same level of evidence that religious people have to support their view.
How much evidence do atheist scientists have to support their conclusions? Are you informed as to what evidence religious people have to support their view?
The Enuma Elish.
Why is this book something I should look to in order to provide proof that religion is about ancient myths invented by primitive savages to attempt to make an opaque world seem ordered?
"Everything" and "nearly everything" are not equivalent statements. Are you sure you deeply reflect on everything you say?
I stand corrected. Which supernatural explanations have not been replaced with natural explanations?
I typed in 'define magic' in Google.
To what source did it take you?
You haven't defined what you mean by "God", so I am forced to go with the most common definition.
My concept of God has nothing to do with the way in which you put words in my mouth. My statement about the vastness of the universe was this:
The more I'm shown the vastness of the universe, the more I am convinced of the power, wisdom, and greatness of that Lawmaker.So why did you respond like this?:
The more you're shown the vastness of the universe, the more you think it was created especially for humans by a magic human?Where did I say anything about it being created for humans by a magic human? Why do you think that a magic human creating a vast universe for humans is the most common definition of God? Why did you feel you needed to assume anything about what I believe rather than just addressing my statement? How is that precise? How is that scientific?
I don't claim to know anything for certain. My levels of belief correlate to the amount of evidence for that belief. If something has no evidence to support it, then of course I'm not going to believe it at all. That's how rational people tend to operate.
If you don't claim to know anything for certain, why did you state, "
it all certainly [bold added] wasn't made to please a jealous human with magical powers."?
I thought that was too absurd for refutation, but I will address it since you insist. The "laws of nature" are not literally laws mandated by a mystical being, just arbitrary titles that we give to the qualities of nature. I'm not sure how something like the existence of gravity proves the existence of some sort of supernatural realm.
I will re-state that I do not get hung up on terms. If someone uses a term incorrectly, I will not say "Gotcha!" I am only interested in the idea behind the term. However, if someone wants to re-define a universally used term and use the new definition as proof, I need a good reason why I should agree to that. So, why do you think that the term "laws of nature" does not really refer to laws?
Lemaitre at least rejected his magic book
What was his magic book? In what way did he reject it?
Okay, four times now I have acknowledged that I was imprecise, incorrect, or open to having my mind changed. I have done that rather than ignoring when you've given me a good challenge. You, on the other hand, have ignored many of my questions. It is difficult for me to conclude anything other than that my unanswered questions have stumped you and that you have chosen to ignore them rather than admit anything that disrupts your position or ego. I will continue to believe that until you answer them all.
Once again, here are the questions that are still unanswered:
Unanswered Questions from Previous Posts:What religious person believes in magic?
Name the contradictions. Are you under the impression that physics is free of contradictions?
Exactly why should I worry if they don't agree with me about something that I've studied for 21 years and they haven't?
Why do we even have a sense of justice?
Why would finding a natural explanation for how things work in the physical world imply that everything (including the non-physical, including meaning) can be explained naturally?
How does intelligence in the field of science imply intelligence in a field which science, by definition, does not consider (i.e., the supernatural)?
Where in the show does it teach that supernatural beings are superfluous?
Do you think you are catching me out on something?
Are you going to apologize for your much more incorrect statement?
Did you understand the point I was making at all?
Again, how does this contradict my statement?
Where did I claim that Einstein’s belief in anything whatsoever made it true?
What is the natural explanation of why we think things
should be just?
How would you test whether or not prayer works?
What would be needed for you to substantiate whether or not the laws of nature had been suspended?
What do you mean by “suspended”?
What do you mean when you say that the stars are the result of magic?
Who has said that they are?
If someone claimed they were, how would you test that?
Where has science said that?
What do you think is the proof and explanation for that being the reason?
Do you think it’s the only reason?
If so, why?
If not, what other reason(s) are there?
How do you know?
What do you mean when you say “religion/religious”?
Do you think that all religions give the same answers?
Do you think that every religious answer is meant to be eternal?
Have you considered that some religious answers are only meant to be an answer for as long as they are supported by evidence (i.e., the way it is with science)?
Are you seriously offering your opinion as proof?
How can you get to the truth if you misrepresent things over and over?
Whether you meant God or human, how do you know it’s certain that that’s not why it was made?
In any case, who said it was made to please anyone?
Btw, why did you only address what I said about the vastness of the universe?
What does that mean to you?
Why do you solely quote Einstein to the extent that you even gave two of your three quotes
twice?
New Questions:If you can compartmentalize Newton's (and other scientists') religious views from his/their intelligence, why can you not do the same for the posters on this board?
Where in that quote does Einstein call himself an atheist?
So, again, how did your link address what you were so sure and certain of?
How do you know that natural selection exists?
How do you know that humans who got along with each other tended to survive?
Why do you think this was a Gotcha question?
What evidence would you need to see that would support or prove the existence of a supernatural event?
What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence in the case I presented?
How much evidence do atheist scientists have to support their conclusions?
Are you informed as to what evidence religious people have to support their view?
Why is this book something I should look to in order to provide proof that religion is about ancient myths invented by primitive savages to attempt to make an opaque world seem ordered?
Which supernatural explanations have not been replaced with natural explanations?
To what source did it take you?
So why did you respond like this?:The more you're shown the vastness of the universe, the more you think it was created especially for humans by a magic human?
Where did I say anything about it being created for humans by a magic human?
Why do you think that a magic human creating a vast universe for humans is the most common definition of God?
Why did you feel you needed to assume anything about what I believe rather than just addressing my statement?
How is that precise?
How is that scientific?
If you don't claim to know anything for certain, why did you state, "it all
certainly [bold added] wasn't made to please a jealous human with magical powers.”?
So, why do you think that the term "laws of nature" does not really refer to laws?
What was his magic book? In what way did he reject it?
Saulisa
Logic is our best defense against The Experts.
reply
share
Pax_Romana_300
11 years ago
You have so many questions that it is hard for me to answer them all. I'm looking for truth, not to bolster my predispositions, so if I find evidence against my view then I will gladly change it. Sadly, you have provided no evidence for the supernatural and I think this complete lack of evidence is a great reason to be skeptical of its existence.
Okay, this is where we started. If you can compartmentalize Newton's (and other scientists') religious views from his/their intelligence, why can you not do the same for the posters on this board? You initially and repeatedly called the religious posters here "stupid" with no qualifications.
I have actually debated with the OP, and he really is "perversely stupid" (he's a creationist nutjob that uses creationist arguments that have been debunked for decades such as the Saturn's rings argument). For the rest, it is a safe conclusion that religious people aren't too bright, but of course there are outliers. I can substantiate this claim with evidence; a new peer reviewed meta-analysis has shown a "significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstr act?papetoc
This is the claim that really intrigued me. If you get it right, you have to tell me how you did it because I find the idea fascinating. I was born in Burbank, California, USA.
Seeing as you're American, I could guess with about a 95% degree of certainty with about a 3% margin of error that you're a Christian (without having any prior contact with you), but of course you know I would guess this and you seem confident that I will get it wrong, so it seems certain that you're just some sort of weird deist or something. I will stand by my statement and guess that you're a Christian, though I am not confident in this guess. I can guess with such a high degree of certainty because I have calculated that 94.3% of America's religious people are Christians, with every other religion making up the last 5.7%. It is obvious that religion has to do with geography, not truth.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reportsIn it, there is reference on more than one occasion to one of his most famous quotes: "God does not roll dice."
Yes, in this badly worded quote he was equating "God" with nature. This is why many people considered him to be a pantheist, but even he said he wasn't.
He also may have changed his beliefs at various stages in his life.
This is very possible as well. In fact, his letters became more atheistic later in his life, including the "God is a product of human weakness" letter coming just a year before he died.
Where in that quote does Einstein call himself an atheist?
If he's not a theist then he's an atheist. He doesn't have to publicly state it. In the second letter I provided he does say, "I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
I think it's pretty clear from my repetition of your words "sure(ly)" and "certain(ly)" that I was referring to your statement that you were "sure" the rates were higher for American scientists today and "certain" they were higher for European scientists.
So, again, how did your link address what you were so sure and certain of?
I was "certain" of it
because the general population of Europe is more atheistic and America has been growing in atheism. I provided evidence to support this claim. It is common sense to deduce that if the general population is more atheistic, then the scientists probably are too.
How do you know that natural selection exists?
Are you serious? Natural selection has to exist!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25How do you know that humans who got along with each other tended to survive?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419132556.htm among mountains of other research on the subject. Plus, it's practically common sense to know that people who cooperated had a higher chance of survival than people who fought everyone.
What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence in the case I presented?
I'd have to see the evidence to be able to judge. If I told you, say, that my friend bodily rose from the dead after a few days and then dematerialized into another plane of reality, and if you don't believe this you will be tortured forever, how much evidence would you require? It would be almost impossible to amount enough evidence to prove something so outrageous actually happened.
Why is this book something I should look to
Read it and find out.
Which supernatural explanations have not been replaced with natural explanations?
All of them for rational people, but the dogmatists to this day ignore natural explanations for supernatural ones. Even the slightly more intelligent ones pretend that the Big Bang was caused by magic instead of saying "we aren't sure yet" and looking for evidence.
The scientists have the same level of evidence that atheist scientists have to support their conclusions. The musicians have the same level of evidence that religious people have to support their view.
This analogy doesn't work because both of these things exist in the natural world. The musicians would have to provide something like this as evidence "classical music is harder because an invisible goblin who lives outside of time and space telepathically told me so", while the scientists would have to have every piece of evidence ever found supporting their view. If this were the case, then yes, the musicians would be pretty stupid.
How much evidence do atheist scientists have to support their conclusions?
Atheist scientists gather evidence and then make a conclusion based on this evidence. They obviously do not believe in things without evidence. They don't need evidence that says "the supernatural doesn't exist" because no evidence exists that says "the supernatural does exist".
Are you informed as to what evidence religious people have to support their view?
Yes, none. Possibly some anecdotal evidence based off of emotion.
My concept of God has nothing to do with the way in which you put words in my mouth.
Feel free to elaborate so I don't have to keep guessing.
Why do you think that a magic human creating a vast universe for humans is the most common definition of God?
The two biggest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, both believe this. It is the most common definition of god.
If you don't claim to know anything for certain, why did you state, "it all certainly [bold added] wasn't made to please a jealous human with magical powers."?
Good point; I stand corrected. There actually are a few things we can know for certain, such as the nonexistence of contradictions. There are other things we can know with functional certainty. What I should have said was "I don't have absolute truth".
To what source did it take you?
None; the definition just pops up.
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww&authuser=0#authuser= 0&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=584e6f03ba966077&hl=en&q=define +magic
So, why do you think that the term "laws of nature" does not really refer to laws?
A law is "The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the..." Our naming of "laws of nature" is just an attempt to anthropomorphize nature, just like how we say that stars "live" and "are born". Laws of nature are not literally laws made by men for us to follow, but they are somewhat analogous to the human construct of laws.
What was his magic book? In what way did he reject it?
Seeing as how he was Catholic, his magic book was the Bible. He obviously did not accept its mythical claims seeing as how he was a scientist.
What religious person believes in magic?
Name the contradictions. Are you under the impression that physics is free of contradictions?
For a simple example, an all loving, omnipotent being creating suffering is a contradiction. It seems that physics has to be free of contradictions.
Exactly why should I worry if they don't agree with me about something that I've studied for 21 years and they haven't?
If nearly every member of a particular field are in agreement that certain propositions are false, this should give you pause. It doesn't necessarily prove it as true, but it should definitely put you in a state of reflection.
Why would finding a natural explanation for how things work in the physical world imply that everything (including the non-physical, including meaning) can be explained naturally?
It's called inductive reasoning. If everything we have ever discovered has a natural explanation, then it is pretty safe to conclude that
everything has a natural explanation. This is why science now works on methodological naturalism. If things have fallen to the Earth when you throw them in the air for 4.6 billion years, then it is pretty safe to conclude that things will fall tomorrow.
How does intelligence in the field of science imply intelligence in a field which science, by definition, does not consider (i.e., the supernatural)
I don't know how someone can be intelligent in a field which doesn't even have evidence for its existence. It's like claiming scientists can't say unicorns don't exist because they aren't experts in the field of unicornitology.
Where in the show does it teach that supernatural beings are superfluous?
If the diversity of life can be explained by evolution by natural selection, then it is superfluous to say "but it was guided by an invisible gremlin!"
Why do we even have a sense of justice?
Already answered.
Do you think you are catching me out on something?
What?
Are you going to apologize for your much more incorrect statement?
If I have made an incorrect statement, then I apologize.
Did you understand the point I was making at all?
You don't seem to be making a point.
Where did I claim that Einstein’s belief in anything whatsoever made it true?
Why else would you bring up his belief?
What is the natural explanation of why we think things should be just?
Already answered.
How would you test whether or not prayer works?
Like this (it has been proven not to work multiple times):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-prayer-prescriptio n
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/05/15/study-conclude s-intercessory-prayer-doesnt-work-christians-twist-the-results/
What would be needed for you to substantiate whether or not the laws of nature had been suspended?
Already answered.
What do you mean by “suspended”?
As in, able to be broken/not working for a short period of time due to the will of a supernatural being.
What do you mean when you say that the stars are the result of magic?
I mean that is what many religious people think; that they were poofed into existence exactly how they are instead of forming from a mass of collapsing atoms eventually heating it to the temperature to engage in thermonuclear fusion.
Who has said that they are?
See last response.
If someone claimed they were, how would you test that?
By observing how they are really formed, as we have done.
Where has science said that?
What do you think is the proof and explanation for that being the reason?
Do you think it’s the only reason?
If so, why?
If not, what other reason(s) are there?
How do you know?
I have no idea what you're asking here.
What do you mean when you say “religion/religious”?
Someone who is a follower of a certain religion/the worship of a supernatural deity that created the Universe and interacts with his creation.
Do you think that all religions give the same answers?
Absolutely not. Some religions are far superior to others. For example, the central tenet of Jainism is to not harm a living thing, whereas the central tenet of Christianity is to believe in things without evidence so we can save our corrupt souls from eternal damnation. Hinduism says the the Universe is billions of years old, and that the gods may have created us, or we may have created them; Christianity states that the Universe is about 6,000 years old and was poofed into existence my magic words.
Do you think that every religious answer is meant to be eternal?
I guess it depends on the religion, but I'm not really sure. For example, Christianity claims absolute truth because its magic book is infallible due to it being the word of the creator of the Universe.
Have you considered that some religious answers are only meant to be an answer for as long as they are supported by evidence (i.e., the way it is with science)?
No, I have not considered that.
Are you seriously offering your opinion as proof?
No.
How can you get to the truth if you misrepresent things over and over?
I don't. You need to be more clear with what you believe if you don't want to be misrepresented.
Whether you meant God or human, how do you know it’s certain that that’s not why it was made?
We can have functional certainty, just like we can have functional certainty that an omnipotent vampire didn't explode and the Universe was a result from this explosion.
In any case, who said it was made to please anyone?
I'm pretty sure the Bible teaches that the Universe was made to please Yahweh, but I could be wrong.
Btw, why did you only address what I said about the vastness of the universe?
I felt that it needed addressing.
What does that mean to you?
I don't know.
Why do you solely quote Einstein to the extent that you even gave two of your three quotes twice?
I didn't realize that I did that.
reply
share
saul_rothman
11 years ago
I'm looking for truth, not to bolster my predispositions, so if I find evidence against my view then I will gladly change it.
That’s nice to hear. I’d also like to say that I truly appreciate how much you toned down your invective in your last post (either that or I’m getting used to it, lol – but no, I think you’ve toned it down). I also want to thank you for answering so many of my questions.
I’d like to make a proposal that I think you will like. How about if I don’t hold you to answering any more of my previous questions, or even any I ask in this post (unless you want to), and we pick one or two topics to concentrate on and refrain from extending to anything new until we have settled them, at which time we can move on to other topics, either from topics we now drop or new ones that we both agree on.
I ask because these last few posts have taken me hours to address, and I just don’t have that kind of time to spend every day. (I once had one of these kinds of discussions with someone and we decided to have a postcard debate. We each bought jumbo postcards and made a rule that we had to limit our responses to what fit in one postcard. As time went by, we were writing pretty, pretty small, lol, but we were forced to stay on topic).
If you don’t like my idea, we can continue as is, but there will be long breaks before I’m able to reply. Let me know.
Until then, I will respond to the parts of your last post which do not require some sort of research (i.e., such as looking back through all our posts to find the train of thought that led to the last comment or studying a link whose trustworthiness I might not be confident about).
If we end up staying as we are, I will go back and address the rest of your last post. If we decide on the new system, I will let you choose the first point to address, and I will let you have the last word on what we’re doing now – I will wait until anything I’m dying to say comes up again under the new system.
I will stand by my statement and guess that you're a Christian, though I am not confident in this guess.
Remember, I never claimed to be religious. My sole purpose when I first responded was to refute the claim that religious people are stupid. Just as one can stand up for members of a different race, one can stand up for people with different beliefs if he thinks they are being treated unfairly.
As to your guess, come on! I was expecting an interesting trick! Christian? Why didn’t you just say I was a theist, lol? The Christian faith is divided into three major subsections which strongly disagree on many issues, and one of those subsections is further divided into tens of thousands of different denominations which arguably disagree with each other more than they do the other subsections. You cannot call someone a Christian, even if he is, and claim to know one thing about his beliefs, except possibly the Trinity, and if you make the Trinity a fundamental belief, then you have to omit Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and many Seventh-Day Adventists from the description of Christian.
If you wanna try again, I’m game. It’s kinda fun.
Yes, in this badly worded quote he was equating "God" with nature.
How do you know that?
This is why many people considered him to be a pantheist, but even he said he wasn't.
I will stipulate that Einstein was not a pantheist!
In the second letter I provided he does say, "I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
He did not say that. He said that
in the priest’s view he was an atheist and always had been.
It is common sense to deduce that if the general population is more atheistic, then the scientists probably are too.
I do not consider common sense to be proof. I do not think scientists do either.
Natural selection has to exist!
Why?
Plus, it's practically common sense to know that people who cooperated had a higher chance of survival than people who fought everyone.
Again with the common sense. Look, I’m not knocking common sense; it’s very useful. However, besides not being proof, not everyone recognizes it when they see it, and some people see it where it doesn’t exist.
It would be almost impossible to amount enough evidence to prove something so outrageous actually happened.
To paraphrase an earlier statement of yours, “almost impossible is not impossible.”
Read it and find out.
Please. You can’t be serious. Why in the world would I read a book I’ve never heard of, the subject of which I have not been informed, suggested by a guy I just encountered on IMDb in order to address one point in a discussion with dozens of points? If I suggested a good book for you to read, would you read it?
All of them for rational people
Ack! You’re driving me nuts! First you said “all” then you said “most” now you say “all” again.
The musicians would have to provide something like this as evidence "classical music is harder because an invisible goblin who lives outside of time and space telepathically told me so"
This is not at all like the evidence religious people have.
the scientists would have to have every piece of evidence ever found supporting their view.
Name one piece of evidence that the scientists have that disproves God.
They don't need evidence that says "the supernatural doesn't exist" because no evidence exists that says "the supernatural does exist".
What makes you so sure of that?
Possibly some anecdotal evidence based off of emotion.
Come on. After all these posts where I keep challenging you to show proof, do you really think that I would consider anecdotal evidence based off of emotion to be proof?
Feel free to elaborate so I don't have to keep guessing.
Heck, no! The guessing is too much fun for me. Plus, my beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not my points are valid.
The two biggest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, both believe this.
Not the ones I’ve discussed religion with.
There actually are a few things we can know for certain, such as the nonexistence of contradictions.
Could you elaborate on what you mean? As I said, in this reply, I’m not going back to trace the evolution of points in our discussion.
None; the definition just pops up.
I cannot accept the definition from a random Google pop up.
A law is "The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the..."
From where do you get that definition?
Our naming of "laws of nature" is just an attempt to anthropomorphize nature, just like how we say that stars "live" and "are born".
How do you know that? What is the idea behind anthropomorphizing nature? What was the purpose/goal of doing so?
Laws of nature are not literally laws made by men for us to follow,
I never claimed that they were.
but they are somewhat analogous to the human construct of laws.
In what way?
Seeing as how he was Catholic, his magic book was the Bible.
How is the Bible magic?
He obviously did not accept its mythical claims seeing as how he was a scientist.
What claims did he reject in order to become a scientist?
For a simple example, an all loving, omnipotent being creating suffering is a contradiction.
In what way is that a contradiction?
It seems that physics has to be free of contradictions.
Why?
If nearly every member of a particular field are in agreement that certain propositions are false, this should give you pause
Why should that give me pause if the field they are in is not the field of the subject in question? If every plumber in the world denied string theory, should it give me pause?
I don't know how someone can be intelligent in a field which doesn't even have evidence for its existence.
What makes you say there is no evidence?
It's like claiming scientists can't say unicorns don't exist because they aren't experts in the field of unicornitology.
It would depend on whether or not the proof for unicorns fell within the purview of the scientists.
If the diversity of life can be explained by evolution by natural selection, then it is superfluous to say "but it was guided by an invisible gremlin!"
Why?
What?
Ah ha! Apparently you aren’t going back to see the progression of points either!
You don't seem to be making a point.
I was, so it seems that you did not understand it.
Why else would you bring up his belief?
Because you were claiming that people who believed in God were stupid and that almost no scientists believed in God. That is why I brought up one of the greatest scientists of all time. I never stated that his belief proved anything.
Already answered.
No, you answered, “What is the natural explanation for our sense of justice?” You did not answer “What is the natural explanation of why we think things
should be just?” They are two different questions.
Like this (it has been proven not to work multiple times):
Again, I’m not reading links this time. If you tell me about a particular test, I’ll comment on it.
Already answered.
I do not recall you giving me specific parameters. Could you repeat them?
I mean that is what many religious people think; that they were poofed into existence exactly how they are
Which religious people believe that?
I have no idea what you're asking here.
That’s because you are not looking back through posts. I now feel completely guilt free!
I guess it depends on the religion, but I'm not really sure.
If you’re not sure, do you think it’s accurate to speak as if they are?
For example, Christianity claims absolute truth because its magic book is infallible due to it being the word of the creator of the Universe.
What do you think that means for Christians? Do you think it means the same thing for all of them? Again, how is that book magic?
No, I have not considered that.
Do you think perhaps you should consider it before speaking as if it were not so?
You need to be more clear with what you believe if you don't want to be misrepresented.
What does my clarity have to do with you re-wording a direct quote?
I'm pretty sure the Bible teaches that the Universe was made to please Yahweh, but I could be wrong.
If you could be wrong, perhaps you should stop making the statement until you know for sure.
I don't know.
If you do not know what it means, why did you make the statement?
Okey-dokey. Let me know how you want to proceed from here. I hope you agree to the change, because even without looking back through posts and reading links (things I would have to resume if we continue this way), this post took me 3 hours.
If you agree to change systems, your next post can be the last word of this incarnation of our discussion. It is also fine with me if you pick the first point to be addressed, but if you do pick the first point, I pick the next!
Saulisa
Logic is our best defense against The Experts.
reply
share
hccman2000
8 years ago
What ever happened to you guys? I found this chat very interesting and hope all is well. I have been doing a lot of research in this topic and it is very interesting:)
reply
share