HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

theistic god

What about the atheistic god? We can't forget him!

And the implicitly atheistic god...

Сообщение от Squishalot

theistic god

What about the atheistic god? We can't forget him!

And the implicitly atheistic god...

Don't look at me, I didn't make it up! </pun>

Сообщение от 296147

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от xaratherus

You see? Theory -> Evidence -> Conclusion.

Key point is the 'evidence' bit. There's evidence to suggest that the teapot cannot exist there. There's no evidence for or against a god existing.

Do you consider your god to be infinite - i.e., it is the causeless cause? Something that is infinite would, by definition, be causeless. However, according to human observation, every effect has a cause.

Additionally, beings with consciousness, ego, and intellect have only been observed resulting from biological procreation - again, basing this solely on what our species has observed.

Thus, to argue that your god should be infinite and to spring from some non-biological source goes against the available evidence; it violates the concept of cause and effect, and also is based upon the idea of a consciousness arising outside of procreation - or of a consciousness existing infinitely - both of which are based on ideas that run contrary to observation.

Thus based on (1) - (6) we can come to the probable conclusion that there does not exist a teapot in the Oort cloud. Everything used is evidence to some degree or another, and thus some probable conclusion can be drawn.

(1) We have yet to find an infinite being existing in the universe, (1a) with only finite beings observed in existence. (2) Thus there is a very small probability that there exists an infinite being...

I can complete the numbered arguments if you like and show why I can claim a 'probable conclusion' that no infinite beings exist (thus rendering any gods finite at best).

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

(1) We have yet to find an infinite being existing in the universe,
You just gave evidence against the majority of pagan gods. Good for you.

(1a) with only finite beings observed in existence.
You just gave evidence that if God exists, it's outside the observable universe. Good for you.

~~(2) Thus there is a very small probability that there exists an infinite being...~~
Thus there is small probability of an infinite being existing in the universe.
Good for you.

Сообщение от Skreeran

Not quite. Written records of angels and a theistic god are purported to be factual, not fictional.Purported, but their verifiability is about the same.

The only evidence of angels or a theistic god come from stories, much like stories of dragons (which were purported to be factual), unicorns (which were purported to be factual), the Classical gods (which were purported to be factual), the Norse gods (which were purported to be factual), the Egyptian gods (which were purported to be factual), and so on.

As of yet, there's not much evidence to suggest that they are any more than just stories, like the rest.

You see? Theory -> Evidence -> Conclusion.

Key point is the 'evidence' bit. There's evidence to suggest that the teapot cannot exist there. There's no evidence for or against a god existing. Therefore, the only rational, scientific conclusion is to be agnostic to the possibility of it, and to say that a god 'probably does not exist' is to make assumptions based on faith, not evidence.But in regards to a theistic god, you can use the same critical reasoning to show that it most likely does not exist, or at least that its truthhood would require multiple violations of known physical laws.

The earth stopping for a day, as claimed in the Bible, would kill everyone on Earth, thanks to Newton's Laws, for example.

In addition, claims made in the Bible and other theistic holy documents have been proven to be outright falsehoods, like the creation myths.

Noah's Flood is another one that is cute to tell children, but with the knowledge we have today, it's simply impossible.

There's lots of evidence to suggest that theistic gods do not exist.

A deist (like you, iirc), is a lot harder to counter with proof. If God does not intervene supernaturally, then there's no contradiction with known facts, and thus, no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist.

However, Occam's Razor handily shaves him away.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

How does anything proven about the Bible have anything to do with science's relation to God's existence?

There is evidence against God's existence!
Bible-bash.
Bible-bash.
Bible-bash.
Bible-bash.
There is evidence against God's existence!

Here's my reply:
"There is evidence against the earth revolving around the sun!"
"On the Origin of Species"-bash.
"On the Origin of Species"-bash.
"On the Origin of Species"-bash.
"On the Origin of Species"-bash.
"On the Origin of Species"-bash.
"There is evidence against the earth revolving around the sun!"

Сообщение от Squishalot

The only evidence of angels or a theistic god come from stories, much like stories of dragons (which were purported to be factual), unicorns (which were purported to be factual), the Classical gods (which were purported to be factual), the Norse gods (which were purported to be factual), the Egyptian gods (which were purported to be factual), and so on.

You're now making a claim that dragons never existed, despite factual stories of their existence. Go on, demonstrate your claim.

But in regards to a theistic god, you can use the same critical reasoning to show that it most likely does not exist, or at least that its truthhood would require multiple violations of known physical laws.

Ok, let's break your thoughts down:

The earth stopping for a day, as claimed in the Bible, would kill everyone on Earth, thanks to Newton's Laws, for example.

Christianity, not 'a theistic god'.

In addition, claims made in the Bible and other theistic holy documents have been proven to be outright falsehoods, like the creation myths.

Christianity, not 'a theistic god'.

Noah's Flood is another one that is cute to tell children, but with the knowledge we have today, it's simply impossible.

Christianity, not 'a theistic god'.

There's lots of evidence to suggest that theistic gods do not exist.

Wait for it.... Christianity, not 'a theistic god'. See my point?

A deist (like you, iirc), is a lot harder to counter with proof. If God does not intervene supernaturally, then there's no contradiction with known facts, and thus, no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist.

I'm agnostic, not deist at all. The closest I get to deism is that I acknowledge the likelihood of there being non-material beings in existence somewhere outside our universe (i.e. not being required to follow the physical laws of our universe), but I make no conclusion as to whether or not said beings created the universe.

Occam's Razor handily shaves him away.

Occam's Razor is not a scientifically logical conclusion.

Сообщение от 334295

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Adamsm

Uh huh.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Occam's Razor

Oh, I completely forgot to comment on this.

Stop throwing around that phrase as if you actually know what it means. Occam's razor is not a claim of truth, probability, or any such thing. It's a heuristic principle, meant to guide understanding, not impose on it.

In simple terms, it's in no way saying simplest explanation = most probably correct. In fact the simplest explanation is generally inaccurate. It's just a guideline of thinking, suggesting that you start with the most basic explanation and work your way up.

Сообщение от Skreeran

You're now making a claim that dragons never existed, despite factual stories of their existence. Go on, demonstrate your claim.Do you honestly believe that they existed?

Really?

Because if so, then I really don't have anything to gain by arguing with you.

Christianity, not 'a theistic god'.I can guarantee you, if there's any theistic god whose story is not full of holes, I haven't seen it yet. I'm implicit in my atheism of them.

Occam's Razor is not a scientifically logical conclusion.But it's a great tool, philosophically.

I'm not just a scientist.

Сообщение от 334295

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Сообщение от Squishalot

Do you honestly believe that they existed?

Really?

Because if so, then I really don't have anything to gain by arguing with you.

Rhetoric isn't a scientific argument either.

But it's a great tool, philosophically.

I'm not ~~just~~ a scientist.

Fixed.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

But it's a great tool, philosophically.

I'm not ~~just~~ a scientist.

Fixed.

I was so tempted to do exactly that, but I was in a charitable enough mood not to :P

Сообщение от Skreeran

Сообщение от Squishalot

I was so tempted to do exactly that, but I was in a charitable enough mood not to :P

I'm feeling a bit antsy this morning :P

Right...

I think we're done here.

As soon as you're willing to apply scientific arguments to a scientific debate, we'll be happy to listen. For now, you're trying to argue a scientific point using rhetoric and philosophy. No, you're not a scientist. Come back when you're willing to act like one.

Сообщение от Monday

Do you consider your god to be infinite

Made me laugh.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

I can guarantee you, if there's any theistic god whose story is not full of holes, I haven't seen it yet.
Well, then why don't you do some good research. I recommend Marion's The Idol and Distance. It might open your eyes to how radically your concept of belief in God can differ from that of someone who actually believes.

HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Ответить