You clearly need to revisit what I am saying ::). Take it slowly. One step at a time.
J.L Mackie actually deserves respect for knowing what he is talking about when he criticises theism (unlike the Dawkins’ of today). A very good read indeed.
OK, The honest answer to the question of Z is quite simple. You made it up for the sake of argument, and you’re trying to sell it as a valid argument even though you clearly know it’s bullshit. To a skeptic it’s very obviously bullshit. I’m amazed Teleo is not intellectually honest enough to just call it like it is: Z doesn’t exist. We don’t have to get into a philosophical argument over the probability of Z’s existence because the truth is self-evident.
Exactly! That is why it may appear like arguments for atheism are purely philosophical. (You just repeat what I say and make as if you said it first.)
You mean to say that if atheism propose that a god or gods did not create species like theism suggests and uses scientific facts to back it up, it is philosophy - equal to the philosophy employed by theists to prove supernatural origin?
I am clearly missing the point you are trying to make. You said that “ALL arguments for atheism or theism are philosophical and/or {a}theological and/or metaphysical.” Please be more clear, because the theory of evolution for example (which you don’t seem to have a problem with) and which some atheists use as an argument, is clearly not philosophy, theological and/or metaphysical.
Huh? You mean to tell me if the bible states that a donkey can talk to a person and a biologist examines a donkey and finds it absurd, you need philosophy to figure out the bible is a fairy tale or that the biologist is crazy? The comment makes no sense to me, unless you mean that only a philosopher can ponder how it is possible for a donkey to speak. Not a very rational world he lives in.
Why is it a bad generalization? Do you think the theist’s answer that “God did it” requires further investigation? That explains it all and no further research is necessary. In addition, theists will only search for additional information that substantiates their preconceived ideas, preferably from their own flawed texts, whereas a scientist will investigate the matter thoroughly. Not even previously established natural laws may evade retesting. A theist will immediately dismiss evidence to the contrary of their beliefs with passion and not even glance at the facts in front of them.
You have also called me a liar (Bordering on it or not). Please give me an example of where theology has initiated progress. Show me for example how the theory of evolution for instance has hindered research done into mutating viruses and how theology and its belief of demons being the cause of illness has advanced medical treatments.
I don’t think that “reality” belongs in the same sentence as fairy tales involving talking trees, donkeys, dragons and a lesson in breeding livestock where you can change the animal’s colour by letting them (feed/breed - i can’t remember) next to reeds. That is what you mean with theology isn’t it? Reality it is definitely not.
People that believe these things form any part of reality are the real crackpots.
That is exactly what I meant with counter arguments for theism.
Actual evidence from the part of theists, the world has never seen. It’s all make-believe and all their philosophical arguments have been debunked thoroughly by either pointing out their flawed logic, or offering actual real evidence that disproves it.
There are no arguments FOR the existence of God that holds ground. Not that I know of, unless you can provide an example.
As mentioned previously, if something is true it can be proven. That would also mean that there is something that could falsify it.
Holding some ridiculous idea up and saying it is not to be questioned or made a hypothesis of, just says that it cannot be proven but it is true because the person says so. That still does not make it true, however much it fits in with one’s own version of reality and truly believing it without real evidence makes that person a crackpot.
Damn I must be bored to entertain this crap.
Yet you and I both agree that evolution is not an argument for atheism or theism. When someone tries to use evolution as an argument then they re either mistaken or dragging philosophy into the argument.
What complete and utter rubbish. Some do admittedly, but making such a bad generalization is about as bad as the generalization saying that all atheists are rational.
If that is what you think theology is about, you are sadly mistaken. Theologians, Christian philosophers etc. are open to the possibility of top-down causation. Hence a program to test it where all parties (secular/non-secular) can participate.
That is your philosophical bias, so be it. Reality contains enough evidence for both of us.
Do I smell the emergence of a SC? I can only assume that you have honestly tried to fully understand the arguments you have found the most compelling (even though according to you flawed) and found flaws in them that you understand.
If it is such “complete and utter rubbish” prove your statement with an example as I requested. Good luck.
Google “Georges Lemaître” and “top-down causation”. Two examples of theology friendly research.
Prove I am bias by offering an example of actual evidence.
Do I smell the emergence of a RN? (Religious Nut)
Of course I have fully understood all the arguments for the existence of God presented to me and have found them all to be flawed. (Unlike some RN’s that don’t actually check things out for themselves) These “arguments” would, for instance, not hold ground in a court of law, where logic and evidence prevails, not that any theist would dare present them in a court of law. They know they don’t have a case.
What I am looking for is actual evidence and not clever semantics and philosophical bull. Until then, I will not dare to state that there is definitely no God, but due to the lack of evidence, there probably isn’t.
Like I said, reality for both of us is evidence enough, you just come to a different conclusion than I do. I am curious though, if you ask “How can there be scientific evidence for something that is not true or make believe?” and refer to God here, how can you ever find it surprising that you do not find any argument compelling anyway, irrespective of what you observe in reality (i.e. evidence).
I have answered that in detail already, but I’ll expand slightly. It’s based on the fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of God or gods or the supernatural. The only reference to God is in religious texts where He lives in a world of fairy tales where talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons and talking trees exist.
Is this the same as Downward- or Macro-Causation as found in Panentheism?
All your reference has done is to suggest that theism hinders progress. In the article Georges Lemaître warned the Vatican that the Big Bang Theory leaves the individual free to deny a transcendental being. Do you think this statement would hinder or progress research into the Big Bang? Of course it would hinder it, proving my point, which you classified as rubbish.
This still does not provide me with an example on how theism had caused advancement and how science hindered it. (although I requested this from you twice already) If the opposite, as I proposed, is “rubbish” and a “generalization”, you should be able to correct me with proof.
I’ll repeat it again. Reality itself constitutes enough evidence, irrespective of what religious text says what. We come to different conclusions, so be it.
Please read before making straw men.
Hold, are you looking for an example where only theology has caused an advancement where science has played no role? The term “scientist” was only coined in 1833. Before that there were no “scientists”, just theologians and natural philosophers. All advances in humanity were largely due to those two categories of scholars.
Damn!
Well done, sir. I submit it was obvious to our local circus clown as well. But he dug himself a hole from which he couldn’t give an honest answer. Cali has this one 100% right (the bloody SC!). Here it is once more because it has to spread!!
If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing, until said substantive evidence supporting the postulated existence of entity X becomes present.
You clearly need to revisit what I am saying . Take it slowly. One step at a time.No, I don't. You need to look at your logic again but you never will so wallow in your pool of shit. I'm just declining to join you, happy as you appear to be.
Do you even know what a straw man is? I asked you a straight forward question to clarify what you were trying to imply. In addition, you chose not to read my addition to the statement:
Is this the same as Downward- or Macro-Causation as found in Panentheism?All your reference has done is to suggest that theism hinders progress. In the article Georges Lemaître warned the Vatican that the Big Bang Theory leaves the individual free to deny a transcendental being. Do you think this statement would hinder or progress research into the Big Bang? Of course it would hinder it, proving my point, which you classified as rubbish.
Seriously - if you want to communicate with me you will have to start providing references and proof for what you preach. Without that, this becomes a one-sided lecture and I eat lecturers for breakfast. The last person who tried to “lecture” me is still searching for his scalp, which hangs proudly behind my front door.
I am sorry Boogie, I have to disagree here. Yes, cyghost did make it up for arguments sake, we both know that. We also both know that he had no clear definition of Z. He did not give a clear definition of Z. It could be anything in cyghost’s mind (even if it was just for arguments sake). Of course I could have told him he is just being arse by making up nonsense for arguments sake. The point being that if cyghost seriously believed in Z (which I took as a given for arguments sake) there is no way for me to tell him that Z does not exist if I do not have a clear definition. That much should be obvious.