http://www.federalobserver.com/catalog/images/27.jpg
dear Atheist: God does not really look like this,
this is an image you must illiminate before you can be happy about God.

Its not so much that modern men, and scientists, like many of you, do not believe in God (though here we do find many Atheists), true athiests are rare.

The problem is that modern men do not believe in the absolute SOVEREIGNTY of God.

http://www.biblelight.net/Sources/Sovereignty-pg171-172.gif

How can someone believe in the sovereignty, or any other ascribed quality, of something that doesn't exist?

The 'problem' is that increasing numbers of modern men (oh, and women) reject the Holy scriptures as pie-in-the-sky.

It's no problem.

Its not so much that God does not exist, its that God's essence is his existance: i am that I am. the rest of us are contingent beings.

http://www.federalobserver.com/catalog/images/27.jpg
dear Atheist: God does not really look like this,
this is an image you must illiminate before you can be happy about God.

Its not so much that modern men, and scientists, like many of you, do not believe in God (though here we do find many Atheists), true athiests are rare.

The problem is that modern men do not believe in the absolute SOVEREIGNTY of God.

http://www.biblelight.net/Sources/Sovereignty-pg171-172.gif

*************
M*W: Just because someone in 1872 wrote a book about their belief in a god does not mean that god exists.

Lawdog,

It is not that atheists do not accept the SOVEREIGNTY of the Christian god, but that they simply do not accept the claims made by theists that such a god exists, whatever he might look like.

Try to think this through a little differently: Atheists do not reject your god or deny him, it is deeper than that because for an atheist to make such a statement would be to recognize that a god exists in the first place. The atheist simply finds your claims for the very existence of a god unbelievable.

Most of your arguments begin with the assumption that a god exists and then you argue based on that. The atheist simply stops at the point of your assumption and the rest of what you say is essentially a waste of time.

Lawdog,

Its not so much that God does not exist, its that God's essence is his existance: i am that I am. the rest of us are contingent beings. And there you have the essence of your problem with debates here.

You offer no support for your assertions, so they become simply a waste of space on our screens.

Lawdog,

It is not that atheists do not accept the SOVEREIGNTY of the Christian god, but that they simply do not accept the claims made by theists that such a god exists, whatever he might look like.

Try to think this through a little differently: Atheists do not reject your god or deny him, it is deeper than that because for an atheist to make such a statement would be to recognize that a god exists in the first place. The atheist simply finds your claims for the very existence of a god unbelievable.

Most of your arguments begin with the assumption that a god exists and then you argue based on that. The atheist simply stops at the point of your assumption and the rest of what you say is essentially a waste of time.

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist. The response is that there is no evidence for god - when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creator - they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does exist (after all, the inductive knowledge required to prove god is also completely lacking in the statement that the universe doesn't require a designer - but they turn a blind eye to it since it suits their belief system) - in other words belief of the atheist shapes his ontological perspective

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist.

Wrong. Atheists begin with no assumption of the existence or non-existence of God. With no evidence either way, who can blame them?

The response is that there is no evidence for god - when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creator

Really? Where is this scientific evidence? I think what you mean is that atheists will say that the scientific method finds no signs of an intelligent creator.

they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does exist (after all, the inductive knowledge required to prove god is also completely lacking in the statement that the universe doesn't require a designer - but they turn a blind eye to it since it suits their belief system) - in other words belief of the atheist shapes his ontological perspective

I believe it is more likely that the universe came to what it is today through a natural process without intelligent guidance. The theist counter to this is that the odds of such a thing are impossible, but we don't have all the facts in so we can't say wether it is impossible or innevitable. Besides, throwing an intelligent creator into the mix - in my eyes - makes the whole thing far more doubtful.

I believe it is more likely that the universe came to what it is today through a natural process without intelligent guidance. The theist counter to this is that the odds of such a thing are impossible, but we don't have all the facts in so we can't say wether it is impossible or innevitable. Besides, throwing an intelligent creator into the mix - in my eyes - makes the whole thing far more doubtful.

When you start talking of the odds that the universe (and how all the stats aren't even in for an accurate guess) was not created by intelligence you are talking about deductive knowledge (as opposed to inductive knowledge) - that's my point though - atheists use deductive knowledge to say there is no god and criticize theists for knowledge that operates on the same principle. Their basis for criticism is not on the general principles that are used to arrive at a conclusion (because the general principles are identical to what an atheist uses to arrive at his own conclusion that god doesn't exist) - the basis is that the conclusion of the theist is diametrically opposed to their own.

The reason that atheist can use that argument is because they follow the premise. What theists (discluding deists) believe in is that something bountiful, greater than the physical world surrounds them. In math, they believe in a free variable existing there. With this variable, all possibilities exist. Infinite realities must also exist bring forth the paradox of infinity. The infinite may not exist in the finite world.
All of this connects to everything else: free will, finite/infinite universe, believe in time, afterlife.

Light,

atheists use deductive knowledge to say there is no god and criticize theists for knowledge that operates on the same principle. Their basis for criticism is not on the general principles that are used to arrive at a conclusion (because the general principles are identical to what an atheist uses to arrive at his own conclusion that god doesn't exist) - the basis is that the conclusion of the theist is diametrically opposed to their own.Ahh I see I need to straighten you out. You are having difficulty understanding the atheist position. In the context here and the views of most if not all atheists here is that the atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That is quite different to the assertion of a belief that a god or gods do not exist. The disbelief of a proposition is not the same as believing it is false.

Do you see the vital and important difference and the error in your statements?

either way, atheists arrive at their respective conclusion by applying identical general principles (ie - deductive knowledge)

Light,

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist.No. The atheist simply sees no reason to believe that a god exists.

The response is that there is no evidence for god And hence no reason to believe theist assertions that one does exist.

- when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creatorNo. Quite the reverse. The atheist response is that there is no scientific evidence that there is a creator.

- they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does existNo. That is your incorrect perception of atheism.

The rest of your post is gibberish because of your preceding errors.

Light,

either way, atheists arrive at their respective conclusion by applying identical general principles (ie - deductive knowledge) No again. The atheist does not reach a conclusion, he/she simply finds the theist position unbelievable and unsupportable.

Light,

No again. The atheist does not reach a conclusion, he/she simply finds the theist position unbelievable and unsupportable.

Then on what grounds do they disagree with theists if not deductive knowledge?

Total absence of evidence, deductive or inductive. Speculation is not deduction. E.g. speculation that the universe appears to be designed therefore a god did it - is not valid logic.

lol - and if a person is incapable of collecting all the necessary data (like for instance examining the composition of the entire universe) to make a conclusion, don't they usually arrive at a conclusion by deductive knowledge?

No, one may simply say we don't know. A conclusion either way is not required.

So an atheist doesn't know if god created the universe but they know that a theist proposes an unsupportable claim????

No. An atheist doesn't find theist claims believable because the theist has never presented convincing evidence.

Now we are back where we started - then if its equally mysterious (ie relies on deductive knowledge) whether the universe is designed or not, why does the atheist choose to situate their ontology on an impersonal universe (which is a conclusion that relies on deductive reasoning)?

.....unless of course it is simply a case of diametrically opposed views ("I am right and you are wrong"):)

why does the atheist choose to situate their ontology on an impersonal universeBecause there is nothing to indicate anything else.

Only if you accept the deductive reasoning behind an impersonal universe - by your definition of atheism you would expect an atheist to sit on the fence because deductive reasoning is required to either be fixed in an impersonal concept of the universe or a personal one - but you see atheists staunchly at the blockades of evolution, the big bang theory, etc etc and so many other ontologies backed by deductive reasoning and "educated guesses".

Someone comes up to you and ensures you that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You ask for evidence, he has none.. what do you do?

While there might be a flying spaghetti monster, the absolute lack of evidence for it's existence means only a fool is going to just accept it as being so.

It would seem us 'atheists' just lack the belief in the flying spaghetti monster that you accept for no good reason whatsoever. Provide some evidence, we change our tune.

----

Btw, evolution is a fact. I have already provided you the evidence you asked for - but you then did a swift vanishing act. It is not a guess, whether educated or otherwise, but an undeniable fact. K?

Light,

Only if you accept the deductive reasoning behind an impersonal universeWhat does that mean?

- by your definition of atheism It’s not my particular definition it is how atheism is defined.

you would expect an atheist to sit on the fence because deductive reasoning is required to either be fixed in an impersonal concept of the universe or a personal oneYou seem to be continually missing the point here. It isn’t a matter of choice but a matter of evidence. Both deductive and inductive reasoning depend on evidence, and the theist claims don’t provide any. As snakelord implies, the god concept is just another fantasy identical in nature to any other fictional imaginative silliness. The presentation of any evidence might change its category.

But there is never any need to make a choice in the absence of evidence.

- but you see atheists staunchly at the blockades of evolution,And rightly so since evolution is fact and there are vast amounts of evidence for the various evolutionary theories.

the big bang theory,I don’t support BB theory. The evidence indicates it is currently broken.

etc etc and so many other ontologies backed by deductive reasoning and "educated guesses".Most of science is inductive. Perhaps you should review what is meant by the scientific method. Science is not about ‘educated guesses’.

deductive knowledge (as opposed to inductive knowledge) is where you observe some phenomena and extrapolate that to a wider context - the very fact that science is constantly changing its established truths (like for instance the acceptance and now rejection of the big bang theory - not just that but virtually the whole approach to science gets re-written every 40 years - how is that possible unless it is heavily reliant on deductive reasoning?) indicates that despite an emphasis on an inductive model, deductive reasoning is innvolved.

I have added snakelord to my ignore list (for personal as opposed to philosophical reasons) so I am not sure what he is exactly saying, but I haven't mentioned anything about the socalled fiction of religion, I am just talking about the idea that design indicates sentient intelligence.

The point is that an atheist doesn't accept the deductive evidence of a created universe because they are established in another deductive model (ie an impersonal universe) which is diametrically opposed.

Light,

The point is that an atheist doesn't accept the deductive evidence of a created universe because they are established in another deductive model (ie an impersonal universe) which is diametrically opposed.But there is no deductive evidence of a created universe. Did you have anything specific in mind? There is evidence of complexity but that doesn’t imply design as evolution has demonstrated.

Fact - New York's utility system was designed by sentient intelligence
Fact - Compared to NYC's utility system, the universe has utility systems that are at least 1000000 times more complex (IMHO)
Question - why does the utility system of NYC require a designer while the universe does not?

Remember this is just a deductive basis, not an inductive one.

To counter this you cling to evolution, which is a diametrically opposed but nonetheless deductive model of design in the universe.

I'd answer, but it seems I've made an enemy of the religious once again :D

Ah well, there's always Woody to pick on I guess, even though his verbal crap smells even worse than most.

I think the plan is that theists will continue to ignore atheists when they bring forward facts and evidence to support their claims. The result will be that theists will enjoy a forum without fact and converse with those who share their fantasies.

I have now today twice witnessed theists banning atheists for no other reason than they are annoyed that they can not reply with evidence in a subject so important to them.

Placing someone on an ignore list has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with maintaining a sense of self control so ideas can be examined rather than slinking into torrents of coarse language and insult - What's the point of having an intelligent discussion with someone who is just out to bring the topic for discussion down to a sub-human battle of wills?

The phenomena, however, is not just isolated to atheists or theists - it is isolated to fanatics - regardless of one's take on a subject there is no good reason to violate the principles of civilised discussion

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible; trying to find proof that god, like the monster, does not exist is unrealistic since the universe is so big and u can not prove a universal negative. However, if you start by not believeing in god, and wait for some proof of god (which by the way should be clear as day since he supposedly wants us to follow him so much), everything makes much more sense. Its like being innocent before proven guilty, or in god's case, imaginary until proven real.

Light,

Fact - New York's utility system was designed by sentient intelligenceWell almost. It evolved over time from a history of many thousands of years of simpler systems. Like absolutely anything you can name everything is the result of an evolutionary process. Man’s intelligence is simply one component in such processes. For example could a primitive cave-man have designed the NY utility system from scratch? You see the point I hope that evolutionary processes are the primary framework in which we all operate.

Fact - Compared to NYC's utility system, the universe has utility systems that are at least 1000000 times more complex (IMHO)Well not really. The universe is primarily a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces that cause fundamental particles to combine in certain ways. These natural dynamic processes operating over billions of years result in what we see today. I don’t see any need for sentience for all that to occur. And I don’t remember seeing any utility like objects out there the last time I looked through a telescope.

Perhaps you should more carefully define what you mean by complexity.

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible; trying to find proof that god, like the monster, does not exist is unrealistic since the universe is so big and u can not prove a universal negative. However, if you start by not believeing in god, and wait for some proof of god (which by the way should be clear as day since he supposedly wants us to follow him so much), everything makes much more sense. Its like being innocent before proven guilty, or in god's case, imaginary until proven real.

Well we are not talking about flying spaghetti monsters we are talking about the deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence (a general principle that one can apply to the universe). If you accept that blind belief exists you must also accept that the dualistic opposite of that also exists (ie blind disbelief - disbelieving things for no good reason)

My point is that atheists disregard this deductive evidence (which is actually the preliminary foundation for making progress on the path towards understanding god) in favour of another deductive evidence - in otherwords an atheist is not neutral because they opt for one deductive knowledge over another, which in turn shapes their entire ontological perspective.

Not that he's listening, but what the hell...

deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence

Design certainly would indicate some form of intelligence. What's been 'designed'? Seems you supplied yourself an answer first and then molded everything to that answer.

And you dare whinge about people not being "neutral"? Hypocrite.

Have I earnt myself a double ignore now?

Light,

Well almost. It evolved over time from a history of many thousands of years of simpler systems. Like absolutely anything you can name everything is the result of an evolutionary process. Man’s intelligence is simply one component in such processes. For example could a primitive cave-man have designed the NY utility system from scratch?

Well you could even take a spear made from a branch with a stone head fastened to it and compare that to the universe. They may not design very complicated things but still the general priciple of design equaling sentient intelligence is constant.

You see the point I hope that evolutionary processes are the primary framework in which we all operate.

Evolutionary processes are necessary to design because we are imperfect - if you take god as a designer (all perfect knowledge) evolution of ideas becomes obsolete. Ideas only evolve as new knowledge of variables comes to hand

Well not really. The universe is primarily a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces that cause fundamental particles to combine in certain ways. These natural dynamic processes operating over billions of years result in what we see today. I don’t see any need for sentience for all that to occur. And I don’t remember seeing any utility like objects out there the last time I looked through a telescope.

So the question is that if you see a model of the universe why do you think that the model must have a designer (and not the result of a dynamic process of attractive and repulsive forces over millions of years)?
In other words what is the essential element that is so intrinsic to less complex things that makes them require a designer that is absent in more complex things? (Its not like the model of the universe was made from articles that were shipped in from outside the universe)

Perhaps you should more carefully define what you mean by complexity.

Complexity? Well a stone spear represents one level of complexity, the NYC utility system another and the universe as a functional operation is another - a complex unit serves a function that is greater than its raw elements (like a wooden table is more complex than a tree even though both are made of the same essential ingredient because a table has a functional purpose that a tree does not) - similarly a primitive spear is more than just a piece of stone next to a piece of wood and the utility system of NYC is more than a collection of cables, pipes and roads and the universe is more than a bunch of attractive and repulsive forces - if you have never seen utility like objects in space (I don't know what you make of astral cycles then - they don't seem particularly random - like the sun always rises in the east - something you wouldn't expect to see for a random occurence ...) maybe you should try looking in a microscope- complexity indicates order - order indicates intelligence.

Light,

we are talking about the deductive reasoning that design equals sentient intelligence (a general principle that one can apply to the universe).No that doesn’t follow. You must first establish that the universe was designed and you haven’t done that yet.

If you accept that blind belief exists you must also accept that the dualistic opposite of that also exists (ie blind disbelief - disbelieving things for no good reason)No. This is a serious mistake you are continuing to make and you will not make much progress until you learn this important issue. The disbelief in a proposition is NOT the same as believing it is false. I.e. disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief. Think about it for a while until it sinks in. This is key to the atheist position and you will continue to smash your ahead against brick walls until you understand this. Until you get it your arguments so far are simply gibberish.

Light,

No that doesn’t follow. You must first establish that the universe was designed and you haven’t done that yet.

If you apply the general principles you are establishing here in other situations you end up with an absurd world view. If you see "design" you think "designer" - there are many things in archeology that we don't know who designed them or how they were designed, but we nonetheless attribute them to intelligence - we have no evidence of anything of complexity that is without design (except for the universe - which would beg the question) - if you look at the body of a bird and don't think it has a designer, but automatically acknowledge that a crayon picture of a bird made up of 5 lines has a designer then you have to take a serious look at the general principles you are applying to come to such a conclusion

No. This is a serious mistake you are continuing to make and you will not make much progress until you learn this important issue. The disbelief in a proposition is NOT the same as believing it is false. I.e. disbelief is NOT the opposite of belief. Think about it for a while until it sinks in. This is key to the atheist position and you will continue to smash your ahead against brick walls until you understand this. Until you get it your arguments so far are simply gibberish.

I was refering to the challenge about blind belief by sayingthe opposite also must exist, blind disbelief - for instance suppose someone is convinced that all water is poisoned so they eventually drop dead from dehydration - a person who goes around disbelieving things for no good reason is diametrically opposed to the person who goes around blindly believing things, but it is blind nonetheless

- Now cris, you may say that you don't belong to that catergory, after all it is a reply to a statement you didn't even make, but there is never only one extreme, there is always two extremes to every circumstance.

My contention with your take on atheism as that it is not the natural neutral ground in contemplating the universe because you take shelter of deductive knowledge that is diametrically opposed to the deductive knowledge of a personal universe -

Light,

Well you could even take a spear made from a branch with a stone head fastened to it and compare that to the universe. They may not design very complicated things but still the general priciple of design equaling sentient intelligence is constant.But the complexity of the NY utility system or a computer would be outside their ability without the benefits of evolutionary progress. I.e. we know of no instance of intelligence creating something complex that is outside of an evolutionary process.

Evolutionary processes are necessary to design because we are imperfect - if you take god as a designer (all perfect knowledge) evolution of ideas becomes obsolete. Ideas only evolve as new knowledge of variables comes to handBut the creationist concept that the universe was designed is based on the idea that anything complex is the result of intelligence and then man is quoted as an example of such an intelligent designer. Now that you agree that our intelligence only operates within an evolutionary framework you now have no evidential precedent to speculate that the universe was the result of ID. The only evidence we do have is that everything that we know is the result of evolutionary processes.

The introduction of the qualification of perfection leaves you absolutely no point of comparison and you are reduced to the unsupported speculation that “God did it”. What example can you show of anything that was the result of a perfect intelligence?

In other words what is the essential element that is so intrinsic to less complex things that makes them require a designer that is absent in more complex things? (Its not like the model of the universe was made from articles that were shipped in from outside the universe)Intent. And most of your description on complexity implies intent.

if you have never seen utility like objects in space (I don't know what you make of astral cycles then - they don't seem particularly random - like the sun always rises in the east - something you wouldn't expect to see for a random occurence ...) maybe you should try looking in a microscope- That simply returns us to the basic forces again – try gravity for a start.

complexity indicates order - order indicates intelligence.Absolute nonsense. Look at a snowflake under a microscope, beautiful order and symmetry and perfectly natural. Look at the incredible ordered atomic structure of a diamond. And there are endless examples of perfect order without recourse to intelligence.

Light,

I was refering to the challenge about blind belief by sayingthe opposite also must exist, blind disbelief - for instance suppose someone is convinced that all water is poisoned so they eventually drop dead from dehydration - a person who goes around disbelieving things for no good reason is diametrically opposed to the person who goes around blindly believing things, but it is blind nonethelessRead your example again more carefully. That is not an example of disbelief but a belief in a particular condition. Again disbelief is not the opposite of belief. The opposite of belief is another belief that the proposition is false.

My contention with your take on atheism as that it is not the natural neutral ground in contemplating the universe because you take shelter of deductive knowledge that is diametrically opposed to the deductive knowledge of a personal universe –Not really. What the atheist assumes is the default position that everything is the result of natural phenomena because no one has shown anything else. The onus is entirely on you for proof if you want anyone to believe there is an alternative.

Light,

But the complexity of the NY utility system or a computer would be outside their ability without the benefits of evolutionary progress. I.e. we know of no instance of intelligence creating something complex that is outside of an evolutionary process. .

thats why i said the premise of intelligent design is deductive - if superior intelligence was subservient to the perception of our lower intelligence then it would be inductive

But the creationist concept that the universe was designed is based on the idea that anything complex is the result of intelligence and then man is quoted as an example of such an intelligent designer.

Not just man - even a bird that designs a nest is sentient

Now that you agree that our intelligence only operates within an evolutionary framework you now have no evidential precedent to speculate that the universe was the result of ID. The only evidence we do have is that everything that we know is the result of evolutionary processes.

That's why it is deductive knowledge - my point is that an impersonal view operates on a similar deductive principle, except it chooses to ignore the fact that our inductive reality is full of designs that owe their existence to intelligence (every life form designs something out of its environment) and that there is no example of material elements getting together and co-operating (except by forces such as gravity,etc - which just begs the question a little further)- all the deductive view of creationism requires is to extrapolilate from our inductive reality, which is the same thing the deductive view of an impersonal universe asks

The introduction of the qualification of perfection leaves you absolutely no point of comparison and you are reduced to the unsupported speculation that “God did it”. What example can you show of anything that was the result of a perfect intelligence?

Actually its the same stalemate that an impersonal universal view lands itself it - all you've actually revealed is the limits of deductive knowledge - don't forget that what goes down in science, despite clamouring around an inductive model, is mostly composed of deductive models (which is why it constantly requires to be re-written) and used to arrive at the "god didn't do it" although they are constantly revising exactly how god didn't do it (in otherwords they don't know how it was really done in the first place)

Intent. And most of your description on complexity implies intent.


Well a creative view of the universe also implies intent to - just like a jungle tribe wouldn't understand the intent of an oil filter for a car doesn't make it any less undesignable in origins - Intent may help us understand the purpose of design but understanding intent is not necessary for understanding whether something has a designer or not. To understand intent you would have to be on a similar level of intelligence as the designer (which is what the process of religion is about establishing ... but that's a bit too much for this thread to handle at the moment). Just because you do not see intent does not mean there is no intent there. But even in such a situation if something has a high level of functional orderliness you would think that it had a designer even if the proper intent was a mystery

That simply returns us to the basic forces again – try gravity for a start.

Then why isn't gravity random? Why are there 4 seasons in a year? Why are there solar and lunar calenders? Doesn't the lack of randomness indicate something fundamentally wrong with the idea of randomness governing the universe, or at least fundamentally wrong enough to support the deductive conclusion that intelligence governs the universe - I mean just take one step in a country that has no governing intelligence and you can notice very clearly the distinction between order and chaos

Absolute nonsense. Look at a snowflake under a microscope, beautiful order and symmetry and perfectly natural. Look at the incredible ordered atomic structure of a diamond. And there are endless examples of perfect order without recourse to intelligence.

Then if its so obviously designerless why can't our best designers create them - seems to indicate a higher intelligence - Even false diamonds require a designer.

I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist. As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

But there is no deductive evidence of a created universe. Did you have anything specific in mind? There is evidence of complexity but that doesn’t imply design as evolution has demonstrated.

Evolution is a system is a design, not chaos.

--- Ron.

light, it seems that you think that believing in a created universe is on equal footing with the disbelief of it. By nature, disbelief comes naturally first, and then belief comes with evidence. like snakelord said, if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster, it would be illogical to immediately believe him and then search for evidence to disprove it, instead you wouldn't believe him and continue to not believe him unless evidence told you otherwise. Starting with belief and looking for disproof is almost impossible;...

How come then that kids believe in Santa Claus?

--- Ron.

How come then that kids believe in Santa Claus?

--- Ron.

Because kids have evidence that Santa Claus exists, in the form of presents on Christmas day. Kids also want to believe in Santa Claus, because it adds mystery and fun to a holiday that is already very enjoyable. I remember my first doubts about Santa Claus (or Father Christmas as he was known in my household), it was much the same as when I read about Dinosaurs and wondered whether they came before Adam and Eve.
Since my youth I've learned that both Father Christmas and the OT are complete bollocks. :p

As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

I keep reading about The Flying Spaghetti God. I'm fascinated, where can I found out more about this wise and powerful God?
Lawdog, can you help me on this? Perhaps you think a bowl of spaghetti evolved over millions off years until it grew wings and now lives in the clouds occasionally flying down to eat atheists??
:D :D :D

I'm surprised, you've never heard of him, the almighty Spaghetti Monster, you to can be a Pastafarian, you just need faith.
he's a popular as any other god/gods.
heres a few sites to read about him
http://www.venganza.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
http://flyingspaghettimonster.org/
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html
http://www.cafepress.com/venganza/
http://www.phobe.com/fsmhat/index.html
http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games2/gameindex/flyingspag.htm

As an Atheist I merely lack a belief in Gods.
From that starting point I may move on to the assumption that Gods do not exist if so inclined in debate.

Much the same way you probably lack a belief in The Flying meatball-Spaghetti God.

Michael

When you start talking of human beings evolving from microscopic organisms an atheist starts shifting their stance of neutrality

I'm surprised, you've never heard of him, the almighty Spaghetti Monster, you to can be a Pastafarian, you just need faith.
he's a popular as any other god/gods.


WOW! I'm no longer an atheist, how can I be when the proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there for all to see! Join me Lightgigantic, read the gospel and you too could become a Pastafarian!

on the existance of God;

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. No evidence needs to be produced. Only the Church has the right, given by God himself, to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.The church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists. However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain. The role of Science is not to be philosophical ground, but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality. God is pur spirit, therefore science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

on the existance of God;

We can be certain that God exists because the Roman Catholic Church says so. No evidence needs to be produced. Only the Church has the right, given by God himself, to make authoritative pronouncements concerning the divine reality.The church also affirms that the human mind is capable of concluding, through various evidences, that God exists. However, to try and prove or disprove God from a scientific standpoint is useless and vain. The role of Science is not to be philosophical ground, but an instrument of coming to conclusions about the physical reality. God is pur spirit, therefore science can never make a certain conclusion concerning God.

Lawdog, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not, then why not? If you DO, then why do you?
Thanks.

sounds fun, but you are trying to belittle the argument. Why?

I think what you are missing wsion is that for every field of knowledge there are persons who are qualified and persons who are unqualified - if you cannot recognise the distinction then the field of knowledge appears absurd - in otherwords because you do not recognise the qualifications of persons who advocate the existence of god form those of unqualified persons who advocate the existence god you view god on par with a spaghetti monster

I think what you are missing wsion is that for every field of knowledge there are persons who are qualified and persons who are unqualified - if you cannot recognise the distinction then the field of knowledge appears absurd - in otherwords because you do not recognise the qualifications of persons who advocate the existence of god form those of unqualified persons who advocate the existence god you view god on par with a spaghetti monster

There is just as much proof for any particular God as there is for any other particular God. Be it the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not qualified to translate scripture, but then it's just that isn't it, words on paper. Not God coming down from the clouds and throwing lightening bolts to form orders on slabs of rock for all humans to see. I simply don't believe in fairy tales, and neither do millions of others like me.

There is just as much proof for any particular God as there is for any other particular God. Be it the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not qualified to translate scripture, but then it's just that isn't it, words on paper. Not God coming down from the clouds and throwing lightening bolts to form orders on slabs of rock for all humans to see. I simply don't believe in fairy tales, and neither do millions of others like me.

the things about words on paper is they convey things - otherwise if you truly held a view that words are obsolete why would you even bother to post anything on forums like this?

Again I repeat, there is no question of proof for one who cannot distinguish between who is qualified and who is unqualified in a field of knowledge - that's why there is no distinction between god and a spaghetti monster for you

the things about words on paper is they convey things - otherwise if you truly held a view that words are obsolete why would you even bother to post anything on forums like this?

Again I repeat, there is no question of proof for one who cannot distinguish between who is qualified and who is unqualified in a field of knowledge - that's why there is no distinction between god and a spaghetti monster for you

Ok Lightgigantic, what proof is there for the Christian God? Solid, verifiable proof that we can all observe should we choose to? I tell you, I saw a video clip on Youtube of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but being a rational human I know it was just created by some guys on their computer. Why should I believe the musings of some guys thousands of years ago are proof of God?

As I just said in the first entry, proof cannot and should not be given. You rely on physical and visible proofs to come to conclusions about spiritual and invisible realities. What is true is not always subject to proofs. It can be demonstrated through logical argument that a first cause exists and a prime mover, but beyond the things Aristotle describes in his metaphysics, demonstration does not apply.

Ok Lightgigantic, what proof is there for the Christian God? Solid, verifiable proof that we can all observe should we choose to? I tell you, I saw a video clip on Youtube of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but being a rational human I know it was just created by some guys on their computer. Why should I believe the musings of some guys thousands of years ago are proof of God?

Well what's the difference between a spaghetti monster and george bush - you have only ever encountered them both through re-presentation (ie electronic media)?

Well what's the difference between a spaghetti monster and george bush - you have only ever encountered them both through re-presentation (ie electronic media)?

The main difference is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a funny prank, and George Bush is a twat. What kind of argument are you trying to make? George Bush exists because thousands of people have seen him in the flesh, and he is human, therefore why shouldn't I believe he exists? Nobody has ever come into contact with God.
Lawdog, you have made no sense once again, apart from supporting my comparison between your God and the FSM. Both are human creations.

The main difference is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a funny prank, and George Bush is a twat. What kind of argument are you trying to make? George Bush exists because thousands of people have seen him in the flesh, and he is human, therefore why shouldn't I believe he exists?


Because you haven't perceived him by your direct senses - you have faith in the reports of persons who have seen him and accept those reports as credible - in other words unconsciously you are applying general principles to determine who is a credible source and who is not a credible source for understanding that george bush actually exists.

Nobody has ever come into contact with God.


This is a statement contested by a plethora of saintly people - it may be true that you have never came in to contact with god but then you may not be an adequate yardstick to determine whether all people in all times and circumstances have never met god

Lawdog, you have made no sense once again, apart from supporting my comparison between your God and the FSM. Both are human creations.

Your conclusion that god is created by humans is not an idea confirmed by scripture - it raises the question what are the general princples you are applying to determine that god is created by man

- I mean its not sufficient for you to say that you have never met god, because there are very good reasons why god is not directly perceivable to everyone (just like there are very good reasons why george bush or even the perception of scientists are not directly perceivable to everyone)

lightgigantic,

There are two main points you misunderstand beside that which Cris is addressing.

The first is chance or what you are referring to as random occurrence. It is quite evident that the Universe operates according to certain principles (the fundamental laws and forces of physics) . This is not in dispute. That you seem to think atheists should expect the Universe to behave chaotically is not at all the point of chance either as it applies to Evolutionary theory, natural law, or the lack of belief in a creator/designer.

The second is the concept of design. Complexity does not suggest design, a snowflake is a complex structure yet it forms without a creator as the result of natural forces. There are natural caverns whose form and pattern are far more complex than any sane civil engineer ever conceived. What suggests design is whether something stands apart from natural order. A house suggests design, not because of its complexity but because trees don't fall apart into lumber and stack themselves into piles resembling dwellings. It is a formation that is not natural.

~Raithere

lightgigantic,

There are two main points you misunderstand beside that which Cris is addressing.

The first is chance or what you are referring to as random occurrence.

I don't call it random - those who accept a view of an impersonal universe do

It is quite evident that the Universe operates according to certain principles (the fundamental laws and forces of physics) . This is not in dispute. That you seem to think atheists should expect the Universe to behave chaotically is not at all the point of chance either as it applies to Evolutionary theory, natural law, or the lack of belief in a creator/designer.

I am not sure what you are saying - if there is no intelligence there is chaos - if there is no chaos there must be intelligence - the logic is that you can detect the presence of an object (inthis case intelligence) by its symptoms - randomness also has it symptoms too, that declar eits presence.

The second is the concept of design. Complexity does not suggest design, a snowflake is a complex structure yet it forms without a creator as the result of natural forces.

- Natural force is just as far as your intelligence allows you to travel down the path of cause and effect - but by deduction you can extrapolilate a further cause - for instance where is there the example of a force or energy without an energetic source - in other words where is the question of law without law maker

There are natural caverns whose form and pattern are far more complex than any sane civil engineer ever conceived. What suggests design is whether something stands apart from natural order.

"Natural order" is just our inductive experience of a limited sphere - I think you would be hard pressed to determine the parameters of "natural order"
- or rather science's comprehesion of the parameters of natural order is constantly being revised. You could provide the parameters but they would become obsolete because it is not an absolute definition

A house suggests design, not because of its complexity but because trees don't fall apart into lumber and stack themselves into piles resembling dwellings. It is a formation that is not natural.

Well why not, if sentience is not a contributing factor to "natural order"

thank you light, thank you very much, thank you for making me laugh, I was feeling a little down and you put a smile on my face, I really appreciate your humourous posts.
keep up the good work.
all hail lightgigantic, the best comedian on the internet, nay! the world.

No problems preacher guy ....

I guess its a common phenomena for people to eventually tire of gross materialism and the feeble rewards of the material body that causes them to seek out spiritual topics as a source of rejuvenating their otherwise uneventful lives of predictable consequence

yeh you hit the nail on the head, theres nothing more funny than a theist, trying to explain his religious basis with logic.

and nothing more pointless than an atheist trying to dislodge that with bravado and complete lack of any constructive contributions .....

and nothing more pointless than an atheist trying to dislodge that with bravado and complete lack of any constructive contributions .....

What, constructive as in quoting from the Bible and passing it off as proof?
Try reading these instead:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0753819961/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141026162/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0812976568/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239

What, constructive as in quoting from the Bible and passing it off as proof?
Try reading these instead:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0753819961/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141026162/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0812976568/202-6292885-5831848?v=glance&n=266239

They weren't particularly informative links :confused:

I don't think I have quoted the bible either :confused:

Actually my previous comment was directed at preacher guy and not yourself wsion - even though you may be possessed of the same sentiment as preacher you at least have a higher success rate for presenting something that is constructive

I don't call it random - those who accept a view of an impersonal universe doNo, we don't. As I already explained.

I am not sure what you are saying - if there is no intelligence there is chaos - if there is no chaos there must be intelligence -There are two main problems here. One is that you're presenting a false dilemma here which is a logical fallacy. Two, there is no such thing as true chaos above a quantum level. If you wish to assume that order must come from intelligence that is fine... but recognize it as an assumption because there is no empirical or logical foundation for such a supposition.

the logic is that you can detect the presence of an object (in this case intelligence) by its symptoms - randomness also has it symptoms too, that declare its presence. First you need to be able to identify and measure such effects or "symptoms". Order does not suffice as it is embedded in the very fabric of the Universe.

Natural force is just as far as your intelligence allows you to travel down the path of cause and effect - but by deduction you can extrapolilate a further cause - for instance where is there the example of a force or energy without an energetic source - in other words where is the question of law without law makerAll this line of reasoning does is place you in an infinite regression. The traditional theistic excuse is to arbitrarily exempt the creator from the demands of the line of query. But once again the argument is logically unfounded.

"Natural order" is just our inductive experience of a limited sphere - I think you would be hard pressed to determine the parameters of "natural order"
- or rather science's comprehesion of the parameters of natural order is constantly being revised. You could provide the parameters but they would become obsolete because it is not an absolute definition I don't concern myself with absolutes because they don't exist except under the artifice of assumed boundary conditions. I find that the need for absolutes is a typically theistic affliction. Even in those who are technically atheistic, such a need drives religious like belief and behavior. The irony is that theists attempt to derive absolutes from a force that is, by most definitions, infinite in scope and thus irresolvable.

Well why not, if sentience is not a contributing factor to "natural order" Because that's not how trees are.

~Raithere

There are two main problems here. One is that you're presenting a false dilemma here which is a logical fallacy. Two, there is no such thing as true chaos above a quantum level. If you wish to assume that order must come from intelligence that is fine... but recognize it as an assumption because there is no empirical or logical foundation for such a supposition.


My point is that a view for an impersonal universe also operates under similar deductive premises - the fact that one person chooses one uinversal view over another simply indicates an epistemological bias - in other words the impersonal universal view claim that a personal universal view is based on processes that are not completely inductive is hollow because their own view operates by the same general principles. In other words the basis for rejecting theism is the same basis that establishes non theism.

First you need to be able to identify and measure such effects or "symptoms". Order does not suffice as it is embedded in the very fabric of the Universe.


Well I guess you would have to provide examples of designerless order (without of course begging the question by refering to "the universe") - if you take anything that appears designerless (like a snow flake) you can take it back by examining the process of cause and effect until you come to a point where the cause is a mystery (evidenced that the cause cannot be mimicked because the cause is not understood in full or within the parameters of inductive inquiry) - the fact that the fabric of the universe is embedded with a design concept offers another deductive evidence of sentience - after all wouldn't you expect that to be a symptom of an all pervasive consciousness (that is associated with god)?

All this line of reasoning does is place you in an infinite regression. The traditional theistic excuse is to arbitrarily exempt the creator from the demands of the line of query. But once again the argument is logically unfounded.


This sounds like a remarkable analysis of science bereft of a concept of the absolute - just a little patch of "knowledge" between infinite axis spreading in all directions ....

I don't concern myself with absolutes because they don't exist except under the artifice of assumed boundary conditions. I find that the need for absolutes is a typically theistic affliction. Even in those who are technically atheistic, such a need drives religious like belief and behavior. The irony is that theists attempt to derive absolutes from a force that is, by most definitions, infinite in scope and thus irresolvable.


Then why are persons like yourself who take to the task of representing the impersonal universal view so "absolutely" sure of things like the evolution of humanity from micro- organisms, or absolutely sure what was happening on the earth 100 000 years ago?
If you examine the basis for these claims you will see that they are highly deductive - the evidence is that these "absolutes" get rewritten every 40 years.
The problem is that you borrow two cloaks - one is the view that science is absolute enough to refute anything claimed in the name of theism - the other is that science is not so absolute to avoid being completely re-written every 40 years.


Because that's not how trees are.

~Raithere

Yes its ironic how they don't form into houses

Raithere,

Thanks for your refreshing clarity of thought once again. I was becoming quite frustrated with Light's illogic and was taking a break from this thread.

What can I say - these forums are not exactly famous for ressolving conflict -lol

In other words the basis for rejecting theism is the same basis that establishes non theism.Epistemologically, yes. But not at the level, in the manner, or with the results you suggest. One's epistemological position must be established prior to assuming a methodology. The methodology must then be applied consistently or it fails. It is here that your argument is failing as you attempt to define an argument under one position then attempt to escape to another position when it suits your purpose.

Well I guess you would have to provide examples of designerless order (without of course begging the question by refering to "the universe")Actually, no. You don't have to give support for arguments and hypotheses you have not posited, only for those you do. Were I to posit an argument as to why the Universe operates by certain principles (theistic or atheistic) I would be required to provide argument. But I have not.

the fact that the fabric of the universe is embedded with a design concept offers another deductive evidence of sentienceOnce again, no. It's not. It's your premise that's under attack not your conclusion. In particular, the premise that order is necessarily the result of intelligent design. You've yet to prove this premise therefore any subsequent conclusions you base it upon are unfounded.

This sounds like a remarkable analysis of science bereft of a concept of the absolute - just a little patch of "knowledge" between infinite axis spreading in all directions ....Indeed? Where is it that science belies its own methodology?

Then why are persons like yourself who take to the task of representing the impersonal universal view so "absolutely" sure of things like the evolution of humanity from micro- organisms, or absolutely sure what was happening on the earth 100 000 years ago?I'm not. And typically, we're not. The misrepresentation of scientific surety usually arrives when science is interpreted into common parlance for education or publication and I agree that it is problematic. However, weakening one position does not strengthen another.

If you examine the basis for these claims you will see that they are highly deductive - the evidence is that these "absolutes" get rewritten every 40 years.Well no, not really. First off, there aren't any absolutes in science. Even the strongest theory must be overturned or adjusted to account for a single contrary fact. Secondly, most of the 'rewriting' is adjustment, refinement, and reinterpretation rather than outright rejection. (e.g. Newton's laws still apply, we have simply modified exactly where, how, and when.)

The problem is that you borrow two cloaks - one is the view that science is absolute enough to refute anything claimed in the name of theism - the other is that science is not so absolute to avoid being completely re-written every 40 years.Not at all. Science is a methodology (see above) and applying that methodology consistently provides certain results given certain inputs. The results change somewhat as we discover new facts and new ideas to apply. If you attempt to use this methodology in an attempt to support theistic beliefs then you have to accept the results, you can't simply jump outside the method whenever you run into a conclusion you dislike and then claim that the methodology supports the results.

~Raithere

Epistemologically, yes. But not at the level, in the manner, or with the results you suggest. One's epistemological position must be established prior to assuming a methodology. The methodology must then be applied consistently or it fails. It is here that your argument is failing as you attempt to define an argument under one position then attempt to escape to another position when it suits your purpose.

Epistemology is the method of knowledge ... Its not clear what you are indicating by methodology


Actually, no. You don't have to give support for arguments and hypotheses you have not posited, only for those you do. Were I to posit an argument as to why the Universe operates by certain principles (theistic or atheistic) I would be required to provide argument. But I have not.

Then what are your views on the universal creation (personal or impersonal?) Does matter create consciousness? - You may have personal views on these topics but if we take the general position of science (the epistemology that all phenomena can be recorded and quantified - in otherwords the epistemology is limited to matter) its obvious what absolutes are advocated (the ontology of an impersonal universe).

When it is advocated than man evoled from a microscopic organism or the state of civilisation 100 000 years ago or the nature of the universal creation of course you have a process of knowledge!!! (ie, a movement from epistemology to ontology)

Once again, no. It's not. It's your premise that's under attack not your conclusion. In particular, the premise that order is necessarily the result of intelligent design. You've yet to prove this premise therefore any subsequent conclusions you base it upon are unfounded.

So how are you free from the same network by assuming the universe is impersonal (see above statement)?

Epistemology is the method of knowledge ... Its not clear what you are indicating by methodologyEpistemology is the study of what knowledge is and how it is obtained. It is implicit and unexamined by most individuals but it is primary to the methodology one uses to justify claims of knowledge. For instance, one must come to the epistemological conclusion that our senses report the state of reality to us more or less accurately prior to accepting the methodologies of the empirical sciences.

Then what are your views on the universal creation (personal or impersonal?) Does matter create consciousness?I think my personal views about consciousness would only confuse matters at this point. But I will state that the first problem is defining what consciousness is. Until this is done there's not much point in attempting to explain how it is generated.

You may have personal views on these topics but if we take the general position of science (the epistemology that all phenomena can be recorded and quantified - in otherwords the epistemology is limited to matter) its obvious what absolutes are advocated (the ontology of an impersonal universe).Some clarification is needed here. You have your sets wrong. The epistemological position of science is not that all phenomena are necessarily material in nature but that the field of science is limited to those phenomena which are available to empirical study.

The problem is that many religions have been lured in by the success of science and attempt to make assertions they have no authority to make. Religious or spiritual (better term) experience is inherently and intensely personal and subjective. While we might analyze empirical effects and causes, the subjective experience itself is well beyond the scope of the scientific method. I can no more study your personal revelation of god than you can my experience of Bach. The problem for religion is that most of us look to logic and empirical support to justify claims of knowledge.

When it is advocated than man evoled from a microscopic organism or the state of civilisation 100 000 years ago or the nature of the universal creation of course you have a process of knowledge!!! (ie, a movement from epistemology to ontology) How does evolution or archaeology define "a movement from epistemology to ontology"? I'm not even sure what you mean by that last statement.

So how are you free from the same network by assuming the universe is impersonal (see above statement)?I'm not assuming any such thing. In fact I find the question fallacious; I find no division between myself and the Universe that wants for reconciliation. We have a very strong tendency to anthropomorphize... I do my best to minimize that error. But to answer your question a little more directly, from an epistemological position I am agnostic... most atheists are. This is what Cris was trying to explain to you earlier.

~Raithere

Epistemology is the study of what knowledge is and how it is obtained. It is implicit and unexamined by most individuals but it is primary to the methodology one uses to justify claims of knowledge. For instance, one must come to the epistemological conclusion that our senses report the state of reality to us more or less accurately prior to accepting the methodologies of the empirical sciences.

This is the exact weakness of empiricism - people make errors based on their judgements drawn from sensory information all the time, particularly if they are unqualified- There are epsitemological paradigms for receiving information however that don't rely on one's sense perception of reality, such as hearing from authority (relies on the sense perception of someone in a more qualified position) - that's why so much of knowledge is made up of reading text books ..... Still not 100% clear on your distinction between methodology and epistemology - seems like you are saying that epistemology comes before methodology, which wouldn't strengthen your argument

I think my personal views about consciousness would only confuse matters at this point. But I will state that the first problem is defining what consciousness is. Until this is done there's not much point in attempting to explain how it is generated.

Well take a dead person and a living person and note the differences

Some clarification is needed here. You have your sets wrong. The epistemological position of science is not that all phenomena are necessarily material in nature but that the field of science is limited to those phenomena which are available to empirical study.

Which limits the onotology to matter - ie a view of an impersonal universe

The problem is that many religions have been lured in by the success of science and attempt to make assertions they have no authority to make. Religious or spiritual (better term) experience is inherently and intensely personal and subjective.

If that was the case you would expect to see religious experience as a wide array of characteristics - instead the characteristics of religion are quite uniform - eg - general focus on good character, emancipation from worldly delights, establishment of a transcendental reality etc

In other words there seems to be an objective reality connecting these subjective experiences - you could deduce that they are responding to the same objective phenomena (ie perceiving god) hence religion bears similar characteristics in varieties of time place and circumstance

While we might analyze empirical effects and causes, the subjective experience itself is well beyond the scope of the scientific method. I can no more study your personal revelation of god than you can my experience of Bach. The problem for religion is that most of us look to logic and empirical support to justify claims of knowledge.

Actually religion doesn't rely on ascending empiricism - it relies on descending revelation - in other words the knowledge is received as opposed to acquired - in empiricism there is no focus on personal behaviour to acquire knowledge because the person seeking to acquire is the only conscious factor - in revelation however there are two conscious factors (at least) namely god (or god's representative, like say jesus for the xtians) and the person seeking spiritual knowledge - in other words if you have bad character (ie are offensive or inimical to the person delivering the knowledge) you don't acquire any spiritual knowledge - this is a basic summary of the epistemology of acquiring spiritual knowledge - it innvolves existential conditions or ways that you have to actually behave to acquire it

How does evolution or archaeology define "a movement from epistemology to ontology"? I'm not even sure what you mean by that last statement.

Sorry its my fault for being quite unclear

Ok if you start with the epistemology that only what you can see and quanitfy is real (which limits you to matter) - then obviously you will arrive at the ontological destination of an impersonal universe - accepting quantifiable matter as the basis for an epistemology is faulty because that epistemology cannot be applied to all phenomena (like consciousness for instance)

I'm not assuming any such thing. In fact I find the question fallacious; I find no division between myself and the Universe that wants for reconciliation. We have a very strong tendency to anthropomorphize... I do my best to minimize that error. But to answer your question a little more directly, from an epistemological position I am agnostic... most atheists are. This is what Cris was trying to explain to you earlier.

~Raithere

That's what cris was trying to say? I thought I pushed it too him quite clearly on the distinctions between an agnostic and an atheist and I am pretty sure he opted for the atheist catergory - I could dig up quotes here and there onthis site but i think cris has stated quite clearly in numerous threads that there is no god, which is not a terribly agnostic proposal

Like this quote from cris reeks of the certainty of an atheist
"Whether they additionally believe they are serving their imaginary deity or serving mankind is irrelevant; they will do whatever their cult has devised as a set of rules that they imagine will allow them to cheat death."

There are better examples to dig up but I am pretty sure that cris is happy to declare himself an atheist, distinct from an agnostic

This is the exact weakness of empiricism - people make errors based on their judgements drawn from sensory information all the time, particularly if they are unqualified- There are epsitemological paradigms for receiving information however that don't rely on one's sense perception of reality, such as hearing from authority (relies on the sense perception of someone in a more qualified position)Which is why the methodology of science was developed; to eliminate these common errors.

Authority, in a logical sense, can only result from argument not personal qualification. Regardless, your example is only a further example of empiricism, it's just second hand. Examples of alternative epistemologies would be intuition, apriorism (knowledge is innate), revelation / epiphany, introspection, rationalism, etc.

Still not 100% clear on your distinction between methodology and epistemology - seems like you are saying that epistemology comes before methodology, which wouldn't strengthen your argument Yes, the epistemological position must be established first. For example, if one takes a rationalist position one's methodology would be logic. If one takes an epistemological position the methodology is science. Revelation: meditation / prayer. Etc. Most of us use a variety of methodologies, giving differing value to various epistemological positions.

Well take a dead person and a living person and note the differencesToo simple. What's the difference between someone who is asleep or anesthetized and one who is awake?

Which limits the onotology to matter - ie a view of an impersonal universe That's still not the point. It is science that is limited, not the scope of all phenomena. By analogy; that someone studies Math does not mean that English is not a valid subject. But no matter how many Geometry proofs you run you won't get a better understanding of Shakespeare.

If that was the case you would expect to see religious experience as a wide array of characteristics - instead the characteristics of religion are quite uniform - eg - general focus on good character, emancipation from worldly delights, establishment of a transcendental reality etc

In other words there seems to be an objective reality connecting these subjective experiences - you could deduce that they are responding to the same objective phenomena (ie perceiving god) hence religion bears similar characteristics in varieties of time place and circumstanceOkay, I'll go deep on this one. As each of us contemplates the infinite what is, by necessity, common to our perspectives?

Actually religion doesn't rely on ascending empiricism - it relies on descending revelation - in other words the knowledge is received as opposed to acquired Agreed. Now then, my problem with this epistemological position is that one would expect such knowledge to be particularly accurate, insightful, complete, non-contradictory... it isn't. Therefore either the source is in question or the intermediaries are. Either way, such knowledge is highly questionable IMO.

- in revelation however there are two conscious factors (at least) namely god (or god's representative, like say jesus for the xtians) and the person seeking spiritual knowledge

- in other words if you have bad character (ie are offensive or inimical to the person delivering the knowledge) you don't acquire any spiritual knowledge - this is a basic summary of the epistemology of acquiring spiritual knowledge - it innvolves existential conditions or ways that you have to actually behave to acquire it It's a summary of Abrahamic religions and some others, yes, but not of all religions/spiritualities. It is certainly not a Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu epistemological position.

Ok if you start with the epistemology that only what you can see and quanitfy is real (which limits you to matter) - then obviously you will arrive at the ontological destination of an impersonal universe - accepting quantifiable matter as the basis for an epistemology is faulty because that epistemology cannot be applied to all phenomena (like consciousness for instance)You've already stated this. The problem is that you're assuming that all atheists take this rather narrow material / empirical position. Not all atheists are strict materialists however. In fact, I don't believe anyone can maintain a single epistemological postion.

That's what cris was trying to say? I thought I pushed it too him quite clearly on the distinctions between an agnostic and an atheist and I am pretty sure he opted for the atheist catergory - I could dig up quotes here and there onthis site but i think cris has stated quite clearly in numerous threads that there is no god, which is not a terribly agnostic proposalAgnosticism is a epistemological position as well as a theistic one. There are three agnostic positions: Atheistic and epistemologically agnostic, Theistic and epistemologically agnostic or both theistically and epistemologically agnostic (true agnosticism).

~Raithere

Which is why the methodology of science was developed; to eliminate these common errors..


How are the errors erradicated if the epistemology still relies on sensory perception? Perhaps you could say minimized but not eliminated

Authority, in a logical sense, can only result from argument not personal qualification. .


Authority results from qualification - in other words an unqualified article posing as a qualified one will fail.

Regardless, your example is only a further example of empiricism, it's just second hand. Examples of alternative epistemologies would be intuition, apriorism (knowledge is innate), revelation / epiphany, introspection, rationalism, etc..


Its only empirical if you assume that the person or teacher giving the knowledge had to wrack their brains in the traditional empirical fashion to work things out - the idea behind revelation is that the knowledge comes from a person in pure consciousness, and the ultimate in pure consciousness is god - in other words there is a state of being where knowledge manifests (commonly called self realisation - or perceiving the exact identity of the self)

Yes, the epistemological position must be established first. For example, if one takes a rationalist position one's methodology would be logic. If one takes an epistemological position the methodology is science. Revelation: meditation / prayer. Etc. Most of us use a variety of methodologies, giving differing value to various epistemological positions. .


I am with you but I am lost on this "If one takes an epistemological position the methodology is science" what is the exclusive connection between epistemology and science ?- I have a feeling you may be using science in a broad sense but I am not sure

Too simple. What's the difference between someone who is asleep or anesthetized and one who is awake?.

Different levels of consciousness based on three states of self identification - awake (subtle and gross body), asleep (subtle body) , unconscious (neither gross nor subtle body) - but the self can drift in and out of these three states so it must consist of a fourth elemnt - called "turiya" (in sanskrit) or composed of the fourth element, ie consciousness
more info on
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/25/20/en
and
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/13/27/en


That's still not the point. It is science that is limited, not the scope of all phenomena. By analogy; that someone studies Math does not mean that English is not a valid subject. But no matter how many Geometry proofs you run you won't get a better understanding of Shakespeare..


So why does science advocate an ontology that excludes the ontology of theism (ie the idea that the universe is a product of intelligent design)? Its not like the view of a creative designer inhibits the pursuit of empiricism.

Okay, I'll go deep on this one. As each of us contemplates the infinite what is, by necessity, common to our perspectives?.


If they were actually contemplating the infinite as a form of infinity you would expect an infinite array of results, but instead you see a general catergory of practice that goes down in the name of religion - it may be contemplating something infinite (god) but still there are relatively uniform practices that develop in religion - in otherwords god is the localized aspect of infinity :cool:

Agreed. Now then, my problem with this epistemological position is that one would expect such knowledge to be particularly accurate, insightful, complete, non-contradictory... it isn't. Therefore either the source is in question or the intermediaries are. Either way, such knowledge is highly questionable IMO..


Contradictions may appear due to a lack of qualification of the seer - for example a person familiar with a branch of knowledge can distinguish between principles and details, while an inexperienced person will be unlikely to. The intermediaries only become a problem if you cannot recognise qualification - for instance imagine if you set out to understand genetics and just absorbed any thing and everything anyone ever said on the subject - discrimination requires that you understand who is an authority and who is not - and even then there are some authorities that are more qualified than others - I agree with an aspect of what you are saying- the problem with religion is the intermediatory mediums (in other words the rejection of a qualified authority and the acceptance of an unqualified authority)

It's a summary of Abrahamic religions and some others, yes, but not of all religions/spiritualities. It is certainly not a Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu epistemological position..


I would say it is very integral to hinduism and buddhism because they generally operate out of systems of guru and disciple
http://vedabase.org/bg/4/34/en
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

and also

"8) By the mercy of the spiritual master one receives the benediction of God. Without the grace of the spiritual master, one cannot make any advancement. Therefore, I should always remember and praise the spiritual master. At least three times a day I should offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of my spiritual master."
Gurvastakam prayers V'natha C'varti

I could quote heaps of other slokas on this same point

Think you can acquire spiritual knowledge by not pleasing those personalities who are already established in transcendence? I doubt it. Its certainly not an idea advocated in scripture

You've already stated this. The problem is that you're assuming that all atheists take this rather narrow material / empirical position. Not all atheists are strict materialists however. In fact, I don't believe anyone can maintain a single epistemological postion.

I am referring to a view that the universe is impersonal which is a general principle advocated by an atheist that makes them distinct from an agnostic - I would agree however that it is a conclusion drawn from a narrow empirical position

Agnosticism is a epistemological position as well as a theistic one. There are three agnostic positions: Atheistic and epistemologically agnostic, Theistic and epistemologically agnostic or both theistically and epistemologically agnostic (true agnosticism).

~Raithere


I think we may be operating out of different definitions of epistemology - this last paragraph didn't make sense - maybe you could illustrate the distinctions with examples of action that follows such an epistemology - at the moment its not clear to me the distinction you are making between these three classes

How are the errors erradicated if the epistemology still relies on sensory perception? Perhaps you could say minimized but not eliminatedThe methodology is designed to eliminate errors. I've yet to see a human system that does anything perfectly. So yes, it tends to minimize errors.

Authority results from qualification - in other words an unqualified article posing as a qualified one will fail.Again no. Qualification matters not a whit. The only authority is argument. Is the argument sound, does it provide evidence, does it lead to a conclusion, are there other possible explanations, etc. The qualification, of a person or a paper, is only a cheat... a quick way to decide whether or not the argument is worthy of further exploration.

Its only empirical if you assume that the person or teacher giving the knowledge had to wrack their brains in the traditional empirical fashion to work things out - the idea behind revelation is that the knowledge comes from a person in pure consciousness, and the ultimate in pure consciousness is god - in other words there is a state of being where knowledge manifests (commonly called self realisation - or perceiving the exact identity of the self) You have your methodologies confused here... empiricism relies on experimentation and observation not thought. Revelation's source is a deity, not one's enlightened self (unless you're claiming yourself god) that would be introspection or apriorism. Admittedly this is a complex topic. But we're discussing the source of the knowledge rather than how it is communicated. The source of a science teacher's knowledge is empirical.

I am with you but I am lost on this "If one takes an epistemological position the methodology is science" what is the exclusive connection between epistemology and science ?- I have a feeling you may be using science in a broad sense but I am not sure My bad, I meant to say, "If one takes an empirical position the methodology is science."

Different levels of consciousness based on three states of self identification - awake (subtle and gross body), asleep (subtle body) , unconscious (neither gross nor subtle body) - but the self can drift in and out of these three states so it must consist of a fourth elemnt - called "turiya" (in sanskrit) or composed of the fourth element, ie consciousnessVery poetic but this doesn't really contain any information.

So why does science advocate an ontology that excludes the ontology of theism (ie the idea that the universe is a product of intelligent design)? Its not like the view of a creative designer inhibits the pursuit of empiricism. Again, science does not advocate an ontology, it studies one. The realm of the transcendent (presuming such exists) would be beyond the scope of science. Singular phenomena are also beyond the scope of science. Science studies that which can be observed, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of things that cannot be observed. Although one can make an argument towards it, this does not lie within the scope of science.


If they were actually contemplating the infinite as a form of infinity you would expect an infinite array of results, but instead you see a general catergory of practice that goes down in the name of religionThat's because everyone looks through human eyes.

Contradictions may appear due to a lack of qualification of the seerTwice wrong. First, as above, qualification does not merit authority. Secondly, one cannot even make such a qualification unless one is qualified to do so. In other words, who can determine who is qualified and who is not?

I would say it is very integral to hinduism and buddhism because they generally operate out of systems of guru and discipleHinduism is a bit too flexible and adaptive to confine so tightly... I guess we're both partly right.

" Shabda-brahman is considered the most reliable form of authority for spiritual and related matters. However, Hinduism is not simply an authoritarian system of belief, and tends to synthesise religious commitment with open philosophical inquiry. It acknowledges the need for exploration and realisation of knowledge. Without appropriate conduct and values, informational and experiential knowledge will be inevitably misconstrued." - http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/110.htm


I am referring to a view that the universe is impersonal which is a general principle advocated by an atheist that makes them distinct from an agnostic - I would agree however that it is a conclusion drawn from a narrow empirical positionI still think you assuming too much. So much depends upon the definitions of the terms involved. My favorite response, for instance, to queries into my atheism is, "Define God". Under certain definitions, I can easily be considered a Cosmotheist. Other scientific hypotheses acutally place the individual at the center of things. For instance, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I think we may be operating out of different definitions of epistemology - this last paragraph didn't make sense - maybe you could illustrate the distinctions with examples of action that follows such an epistemology - at the moment its not clear to me the distinction you are making between these three classes

Atheistic and epistemologically agnostic - Does not believe in god due to a lack of convincing argument or evidence but is admittedly ignorant of possibilities under which god might exist.

Theistic and epistemologically agnostic - Believes in god despite a lack of convincing argument or evidence but is admits that god might not actually exist. Or believes that the answer is deliberately hidden by God (the "that's why they call it faith" types).

Theistically and epistemologically agnostic (true agnosticism) - Believes the question of God is unanswerable.

~Raithere

Again no. Qualification matters not a whit. The only authority is argument. Is the argument sound, does it provide evidence, does it lead to a conclusion, are there other possible explanations, etc. The qualification, of a person or a paper, is only a cheat... a quick way to decide whether or not the argument is worthy of further exploration.

So a person who is qualified only in paper is not qualified - what's th edifficulty - qualification implies some practical applicationin the real world otherwise it is meaningless

You have your methodologies confused here... empiricism relies on experimentation and observation not thought.

- Not thought? Excuse me? Why does science constantly change its mind?

Revelation's source is a deity, not one's enlightened self (unless you're claiming yourself god) that would be introspection or apriorism. Admittedly this is a complex topic. But we're discussing the source of the knowledge rather than how it is communicated. The source of a science teacher's knowledge is empirical.

Seeing the self in relation to god is called self realisation and the alternative is ignorance - self realisation is acquired by the mercy of god and god's representative, because the knowable object in this case (ie god) is a consciousness entity and not dead matter - it operates on a different paradigm - the paradaigm of empricism cannot escape dull matter and cannot even enetr into consciousness

My bad, I meant to say, "If one takes an empirical position the methodology is science."

science just means you apply a process you get a result - it holds true with transcendental practices - but if you don't apply the process you don't get the result

Very poetic but this doesn't really contain any information.

lol - not the introspective type eh?


Again, science does not advocate an ontology, it studies one.

It advocates an ontology - otherwise why is their ontology constantly undergoing reformation?

The realm of the transcendent (presuming such exists) would be beyond the scope of science.

why? Certainly thjose established in the "science" of transcendence disagree

Singular phenomena are also beyond the scope of science. Science studies that which can be observed, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of things that cannot be observed. Although one can make an argument towards it, this does not lie within the scope of science.

Unless a person comes to the point of observing what they are observing with all they may acquire in the name of knowledge is a useless waste of time


That's because everyone looks through human eyes.

By everyone you mean you?

Twice wrong. First, as above, qualification does not merit authority. Secondly, one cannot even make such a qualification unless one is qualified to do so. In other words, who can determine who is qualified and who is not?

qualification behooves qualification - otherwise why not take your car to a hooker to get repaired?

Hinduism is a bit too flexible and adaptive to confine so tightly... I guess we're both partly right.

No question of knowledge without training

" Shabda-brahman is considered the most reliable form of authority for spiritual and related matters. However, Hinduism is not simply an authoritarian system of belief, and tends to synthesise religious commitment with open philosophical inquiry. It acknowledges the need for exploration and realisation of knowledge. Without appropriate conduct and values, informational and experiential knowledge will be inevitably misconstrued." - http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/110.htm~Raithere

Therefore one poses questions to a guru - do you know what sabda brahman is? It indicates a process, hence the adaption of "appropriate conduct and values" - because this is absent ion modernism there is no question of acquiring this knowledge by empiricism