nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 106:
Line 106: + Line 111:
Line 112: + + + + Line 124:
Line 129: +
→'Weak Atheism': Still missing the point about ruling God out a priori
::::Well, sorry, I 'infer' that from pretty much everything you have said above, so, if that is not the 'key or only point of your argument', you need to learn to express yourself better. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, sorry, I 'infer' that from pretty much everything you have said above, so, if that is not the 'key or only point of your argument', you need to learn to express yourself better. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Perhaps. Or perhaps you need to read it better, or with a more open mind? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm not suggesting starting from the basis that God exists. I'm suggesting starting from the basis that God ''might'' exist, rather than ''exclude'' that possibility ''a priori''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I've explained my argument numerous times by now: that if you ''a priori'' rule out considering the possibility of God being involved, then you are putting ideology ahead of the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I said nothing about reading all my essays. Perhaps this is an example of you not reading me properly? I referred to a specific essay that I have linked to before in this discussion (i.e. one that you would have already read) and merely did so to support my point that I've long acknowledged that God's existence cannot be ''scientifically'' tested.
::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes, but you don't rule out potential explanations ''a priori'' just because those explanations have not been "scientifically proved". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)