"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai @rez I've always found that when someone is unknown, I instead think of certain probabilities based on what is already known. I find that a lot of the what-ifs rely on things beyond our knowledge anyway.

You are right, the human imagination is one of the sole reasons why progress can be achieved. However, when your imagination is so far out in left field it constitutes as false because it has no connection with previous facts.

Einstein used his imagination by asking "what ifs" to discover general relativity, but he based it on previous knowledge that had been proven before him.

[Kamehameha34]

You are right, the human imagination is one of the sole reasons why progress can be achieved. However, when your imagination is so far out in left field it constitutes as false because it has no connection with the ways things have previously been explained.

I'm calling bullshit. Atheists have no evidence of what caused our universe.

No, the bulk doesn't count. There are an infinite amount of possibilities of a god that could manipulate the bulk.

[Jack]

Atheists have no evidence of what caused our universe.

Science has plenty of evidence. What it doesn't offer is absolute proof.

I'm just thinking what an exciting exchange it would be to debate your concept of an agnostic;
Q: What do you think of gods?
A: I don't know.
Q: What are your thoughts on faith?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you have any opinions at all?
A: I don't know.
Good night, Chet...good night, David...

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There are an infinite amount of possibilities of a god that could manipulate the bulk.

Oh yeah? Prove it! How about instead of making wacky speculations, you sit down and learn about what humans know, then make assertions based on what you have learned. You can even use your imagination, but don't go too far because some people who are conversing with you might not be able to keep up with your hypothetical thinking.

[Kamehameha34]

Science has plenty of evidence. What it doesn't offer is absolute proof.

They have mathematical evidence for a bulk. This doesn't contradict the possibility of a god.

I'm just thinking what an exciting exchange it would be to debate your concept of an agnostic; Q: What do you think of gods? A: I don't know. Q: What are your thoughts on faith? A: I don't know. Q: Do you have any opinions at all? A: I don't know. Good night, Chet...good night, David...

I expected better than appeal to ridicule from you - but I suppose it's a fallacy that plagues all atheists.

[Fonceai]

The point, Kame, that rez and I are agreeing on is that there is a difference between thinking of possibilities and thinking of probabilities.

If this universe is truly infinite, then really anything is possible.

But clear thinking should start with what we know now to be probable.

Therefore, it's an accurate statement to say:

"Based on current scientific knowledge, the majority of characteristics attributed to God/god/gods are not probable, or rely on said deistic beings having capabilities beyond our understanding."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez Oh yeah? Prove it! How about instead of making wacky speculations, you sit down and learn about what humans know, then make assertions based on what you have learned. You can even use your imagination, but don't go too far because some people who are conversing with you might not be able to keep up with your hypothetical thinking.

90% of the was completely incoherent.

As to the other 10%, I won't go through every possibility, but I'll go over the concept:

"God" is unfalsifiable.

There are an infinite amount of variations, however slight, that would make one possible "god" different from another.

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai The point, Kame, that rez and I are agreeing on is that there is a difference between thinking of possibilities and thinking of probabilities. If this universe is truly infinite, then really anything is possible. But clear thinking should start with what we know now to be probable. Therefore, it's an accurate statement to say: "Based on current scientific knowledge, the majority of characteristics attributed to God/god/gods are not probable, or rely on said deistic beings having capabilities beyond our understanding."

Thankyou Foceai..I appreciate your articulation. Well said.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Fonceai The point, Kame, that rez and I are agreeing on is that there is a difference between thinking of possibilities and thinking of probabilities. If this universe is truly infinite, then really anything is possible. But clear thinking should start with what we know now to be probable. Therefore, it's an accurate statement to say: "Based on current scientific knowledge, the majority of characteristics attributed to God/god/gods are not probable, or rely on said deistic beings having capabilities beyond our understanding."

We have no knowledge that would validate the claim "there is a god" as improbable. Infact, there could be evidence that such a being could exist, as soon as scientists succeed in recreating the big bang.

[Fonceai]

Now think about what you just wrote.

It's currently highly improbable, but possible.

If the Hadron Collider actually creates a Mini Bang, then it increases the probability only somewhat... since a Mini-Bang is hardly a Big Bang.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "God" is unfalsifiable.

A vaque, largely undefined being for which there is no evidence is "unfalsifiable"? Yes, by definition. What is amusing is that you consider this to be any sort of argument.

[Kamehameha34]

It's currently highly improbable, but possible.

There's no evidence to validate this.

If the Hadron Collider actually creates a Mini Bang, then it increases the probability only somewhat... since a Mini-Bang is hardly a Big Bang.

Size is relative.

[Kamehameha34]

A vaque, largely undefined being for which there is no evidence is "unfalsifiable"? Yes, by definition. What is amusing is that you consider this to be any sort of argument.

I defined this being. Don't post if you can't keep up.

Also, unfalsifiability is a perfect argument for agnosticism. Go somewhere else if you want to disprove pink, flying elephants.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I defined this being. Don't post if you can't keep up. Also, unfalsifiability is a perfect argument for agnosticism. Go somewhere else if you want to disprove pink, flying elephants.

Let's see you defined god as:

Creator of the universe, with consciousness. There's your god.

Exactly what part of that is not vaque and largely undefined, as I suggested before?

I agree with you on one point. Agnosticism is unfalsifiable. Unfalsibility is a synonym for untestability which often is raised to demonstrate the fallacy of creationist arguments. As their claims are untestable and therefore non-scientific, they can only be taken on faith. This is a directly analogous to your agnosticism, which ultimately too, is based on faith, whether you like it or not.

Agnosticism is unfalsifiable which is to say that it is faith based.

[Kamehameha34]

I agree with you on one point. Agnosticism is unfalsifiable. Unfalsibility is a synonym for untestability which often is raised to demonstrate the fallacy of creationist arguments. As their claims are untestable and therefore non-scientific, they can only be taken on faith. This is a directly analogous to your agnosticism, which ultimately too, is based on faith, whether you like it or not.

No? Agnosticism holds that we don't know. Do you know if there's a god?

If your honest answer is no, then I'm right.

Agnosticism is unfalsifiable which is to say that it is faith based.

That's really boched inductive reasoning.

Your reasoning is as follows:

Creationism is a faith.
Creationism is unfalsifiable.
Agnosticism is unfalsifiable.
Therefore, agnosticism is a faith.


Not only is there a flaw* in the third premise, the conclusion is illogical.

The flaw is in the fact that those who are agnostics are demonstrably ignorant of the existence or non-existence of a god. That's not unfalsifiable. Evidence against it would entail someone showing definitive proof for or against a god. You're confusing a lack of decision over an unfalsifiable claim for unfalsifiability.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No? Agnosticism holds that we don't know. Do you know if there's a god? If your honest answer is no, then I'm right.

If by your epistemological standard requires that before one "knows" anything one must be omniscient or capable of considering all possible information, known and unknown, then one would be capable of knowing nothing whatsoever. This seems to be what you require, nothwithstanding that is it wholly unworkable outside of these sorts of parlor games.

My standard of knowledge is simpler. My current knowledge is based on the information I have. By this standard, I can honestly say there is no god.

[Kamehameha34]

If by your epistemological standard requires that before one "knows" anything one must be omniscient or capable of considering all possible information, known and unknown, then one would be capable of knowing nothing whatsoever.This seems to be what you require, nothwithstanding that is it wholly unworkable outside of these sorts of parlor games.

Time to cut this sh** out. Debate the concept civilly or debate it by yourself.

Anyway:

I don't hold omniscience as a prerequisite for science. We are capable of knowledge without knowledge of everything.

My standard of knowledge is simpler. My current knowledge is based on the information I have. By this standard, I can honestly say there is no god.

You have no evidence to add weight to the claim that "there is no god". You are using no evidence for its antithesis as evidence for it.

[Jack]

I expected better than appeal to ridicule from you

I doubt that. You rarely understand what I post. But here's a new phrase you can paste into your posts from here on out, and it's a more accurate description of my post than your inaccurate "appeal to ridicule": reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction to the absurd".

We are capable of knowledge without knowledge of everything.

You have no evidence to add weight to the claim that "there is no god"

Another contradiction within the same post. All RickSp needs is enough knowledge to disprove to his own satisfaction that there are no gods.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Time to cut this sh** out. Debate the concept civilly or debate it by yourself.

Your condescension is getting almost as boring as it is pointless. You feel free to insult others yet take offense at metaphor? Why bother?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I don't hold omniscience as a prerequisite for science. We are capable of knowledge without knowledge of everything.

Regarding knowledge of your range of possible gods that is exactly what you demand.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You have no evidence to add weight to the claim that "there is no god". You are using no evidence for its antithesis as evidence for it.

Again , the same tautological nonsense. You claim I have no evidence for the non-existence of that for which there is no evidence. That is simple absurdity. A rhetorical mobius strip.

[Kamehameha34]

Your condescension is getting almost as boring as it is pointless. You feel free to insult others yet take offense at metaphor? Why bother?

Mmmk, your further posting on this topic is just philosophical masterbation. Don't expect a response from people you won't respect.