South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 14, 2019, 19:37:58 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

The Skeptical Crackpot

 (Read 41418 times)
Description: A general description
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2010, 12:23:01 PM »

Explain how it is possible. I beg of you. Just go through the logic. That is what I'm trying to understand.
Hold on, you make the assertion that "No objective review of available evidence can possibly lead one to the conclusion that God exists." without providing any argument and want me to make an argument for why it is possible?
Of course it is possible. You will of course not think it is valid or logical to infer from the available evidence anything beyond what you can perceive or sense. Just don't say it is impossible. Just because you think it is invalid or illogical make the incorrect assertion and say it is impossible. I am sorry, but you make no argument for why it is impossible and then all of a sudden want to tell me I need to say why it is possible. Come on man, at least make an argument to qualify your assertion.

My hunch is, you have absolutely nothing. No way to explain how you go from evidence to god, this is why you repeatedly dodge the question.
There are several arguments, of course, I suspect none of them will be convincing for you. But that just IS how you get from evidence (reality) to the existence of God... via philosophical arguments. For you to say it is impossible, you at least need to provide some sort of argument.

Stop claiming "it's possible" to look at the evidence and see god, and SHOW how you look at the evidence to see god.
Who said evidence/reality will lead anybody to see God? I am not a pantheist lol.

Seriously, that line is getting really old now and you've given not even a hint of it's truth, despite being asked repeatedly. Don't even be exhaustive. One example will do: "Here's the evidence, here's how I interpret it differently to you, here's god".
Seriously, read up on the arguments. There are many. Some are better than others, and I am sure none will change your opinion. It will be an utter waste of my time though to go over them just for you.

At best you can say:
For me (BoogieMonster) no objective review of available evidence can possibly lead me to the conclusion that God exists.

Logged
SSiE
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2010, 14:10:25 PM »

Followed the first 5 pages with growing frustration, skipped ahead and found this little gem (my emphasis):
Allegedly Delusional Crackpot (ADC): God is not some scientific theory or hypothesis. The only arguments for God are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. I think philosophical and metaphysical arguments for classical theism are stronger than arguments for materialism, physicalism, neutral monism, naturalism or atheism. I see no reason to associate myself with those.

That last sentence just caused me to have quite a spectacular dumbpiphany.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2010, 14:19:30 PM »

Followed the first 5 pages with growing frustration, skipped ahead and found this little gem (my emphasis):
Allegedly Delusional Crackpot (ADC): God is not some scientific theory or hypothesis. The only arguments for God are philosophical and/or metaphysical and/or theological. I think philosophical and metaphysical arguments for classical theism are stronger than arguments for materialism, physicalism, neutral monism, naturalism or atheism. I see no reason to associate myself with those.

That last sentence just caused me to have quite a spectacular dumbpiphany.

Don't worry, you will get a lot more of those when conversing with many materialists and naturalists. Lucky for you they are rare specimens. And yes, that was a cheap shot just to return the favour Kiss.
Logged
SSiE
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #123 on: July 23, 2010, 14:47:33 PM »

Don't worry, you will get a lot more of those when conversing with many materialists and naturalists. Lucky for you they are rare specimens. And yes, that was a cheap shot just to return the favour Kiss.


No cheap shot, just the honest truth regarding my very real reaction upon reading that. This entire thread is you arguing for some flavour of Gould's NOMA, where the concept of god is assumed to be outside the reach of the methods of science and that skeptics who then dismiss the god-concept from arguments of science alone are labeled crackpots. It is a silly, outdated premise that has been thoroughly and completely demolished, and seeing you attempt to carry it over so many pages and posts resulted in a genuine dumbpiphany.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #124 on: July 23, 2010, 15:15:00 PM »

Don't worry, you will get a lot more of those when conversing with many materialists and naturalists. Lucky for you they are rare specimens. And yes, that was a cheap shot just to return the favour Kiss.


No cheap shot, just the honest truth regarding my very real reaction upon reading that. This entire thread is you arguing for some flavour of Gould's NOMA, where the concept of god is assumed to be outside the reach of the methods of science and that skeptics who then dismiss the god-concept from arguments of science alone are labeled crackpots. It is a silly, outdated premise that has been thoroughly and completely demolished, and seeing you attempt to carry it over so many pages and posts resulted in a genuine dumbpiphany.

Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3112



« Reply #125 on: July 23, 2010, 15:27:42 PM »

Quote from: Teleo
But that just IS how you get from evidence (reality) to the existence of God... via philosophical arguments. For you to say it is impossible, you at least need to provide some sort of argument.

Quote from: Teleo
Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then?

That's my point really. Proving god cannot be done by evidence. You make my point then try to argue.... it's really confusing. I'll say it again, evidence does not lead to god. "philosophical arguments" can, sure, but that's not evidence, that's pure speculation. You see what I'm trying to say here? On a level, we're agreeing with eachother.
Logged
SSiE
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #126 on: July 23, 2010, 15:58:14 PM »

Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.

Which concept exactly?
a) An active interventionist god like that of the Christian bible? A statistically relevant result from a study of something like faith healing should suffice. Every passing minute with the absence of such results fails to falsify the null hypothesis of methodological naturalism, and strengthens case for the skeptics' dismissal of the existence of such a god.
  
b) A creator god who passively watches his clockwork universe wind down?
c) A god whose every act of intervention follows the laws of his universe or includes the constant modification of our perception to make them seem to, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
d) Other variations on the theme of b and c?

b,c and d are rightly outside the realm of science as the claim that I can turn into a pink unicorn when I'm not being observed, and equally worthy of contemptuous dismissal by skeptics without being labeled 'crackpots'.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #127 on: July 23, 2010, 15:58:48 PM »

Quote from: Teleo
But that just IS how you get from evidence (reality) to the existence of God... via philosophical arguments. For you to say it is impossible, you at least need to provide some sort of argument.

Quote from: Teleo
Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then?

That's my point really. Proving god cannot be done by evidence.
The point being, a posteriori philosophical arguments rely on evidence and reality and are not scientific theories or hypotheses.


Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #128 on: July 23, 2010, 16:00:34 PM »

Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.

Which concept exactly?
a) An active interventionist god like that of the Christian bible? A statistically relevant result from a study of something like faith healing should suffice. Every passing minute with the absence of such results fails to falsify the null hypothesis of methodological naturalism, and strenghtens the skeptics' dismissal of the existence of such a god.
  
b) A creator god who passively watches his clockwork universe wind down?
c) A god whose every act of intervention follows the laws of his universe or includes the constant modification of our perception to make them seem to, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
d) Other variations on the theme of b and c?

b,c and d are rightly outside the realm of science as the claim that I can turn into a pink unicorn when I'm not being observed, and equally worthy of contemptuous dismissal by skeptics without being labeled 'crackpots'.

Let's stick to classical theism.
Logged
SSiE
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #129 on: July 23, 2010, 16:08:22 PM »

Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.

Which concept exactly?
a) An active interventionist god like that of the Christian bible? A statistically relevant result from a study of something like faith healing should suffice. Every passing minute with the absence of such results fails to falsify the null hypothesis of methodological naturalism, and strengthens the case for the skeptics' dismissal of the existence of such a god.
   
b) A creator god who passively watches his clockwork universe wind down?
c) A god whose every act of intervention follows the laws of his universe or includes the constant modification of our perception to make them seem to, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
d) Other variations on the theme of b and c?

b,c and d are rightly outside the realm of science as the claim that I can turn into a pink unicorn when I'm not being observed, and equally worthy of contemptuous dismissal by skeptics without being labeled 'crackpots'.

Let's stick to classical theism.

Classical theism: the belief that there is at least one supernatural deity. Whatever that deity is, it will have to fall into one of the categories above, so the argument is relevant.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #130 on: July 23, 2010, 16:12:46 PM »

Erm, do you think the concept of God is within the reach of the methods of science then? Please do explain yourself if you do think it is because this will really be fascinating. Can we get at least some scientific theory or hypothesis to test the existence of God?? And no, ID arguments from ignorance are not going to cut it, try harder.

Which concept exactly?
a) An active interventionist god like that of the Christian bible? A statistically relevant result from a study of something like faith healing should suffice. Every passing minute with the absence of such results fails to falsify the null hypothesis of methodological naturalism, and strengthens the case for the skeptics' dismissal of the existence of such a god.
  
b) A creator god who passively watches his clockwork universe wind down?
c) A god whose every act of intervention follows the laws of his universe or includes the constant modification of our perception to make them seem to, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
d) Other variations on the theme of b and c?

b,c and d are rightly outside the realm of science as the claim that I can turn into a pink unicorn when I'm not being observed, and equally worthy of contemptuous dismissal by skeptics without being labeled 'crackpots'.

Let's stick to classical theism.

Classical theism: the belief that there is at least one supernatural deity. Whatever that deity is, it will have to fall into one of the categories above, so the argument is relevant.
Please show that you are at least interested in understanding what classical theism entails. Then let's stick to that Wink. Thanks.
Logged
SSiE
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #131 on: July 23, 2010, 16:24:47 PM »

Please show that you are at least interested in understanding what classical theism entails. Then let's stick to that Wink. Thanks.

Classical theism:  Flying Spaghetti Monsterism for the classically educated. Still bollocks.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #132 on: July 23, 2010, 17:08:58 PM »

ha! got two of them now and they are sparring; should be interesting! Evil
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #133 on: July 23, 2010, 17:49:35 PM »

That last sentence just caused me to have quite a spectacular dumbpiphany.


Oh freck that's funny. Grin Let me put it up here where everyone will see:

Logged
Sentinel
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 257


Hellbound Sentry


« Reply #134 on: July 26, 2010, 18:09:57 PM »

Sentinel, you seem to be a bit confused.

You stated:
1) Belief hinders scientific progress. This IS a generalization, and a bad one. You need to qualify what kind of belief. Any kind? All kinds? Just a few types of beliefs? Sorry, you need to elaborate a bit, no serious person will accept such a bad generalization.
2) Scientists will review the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion based on where the evidence leads them. This is of course not true of ALL atheists or ALL theists. This statement is irrelevant to atheism or theism as both are capable of reviewing the evidence objectively.
3) All the arguments that you have come across for the existence of God had been proven false or the false logic it employs had been identified. So what? What is the point of this subjective point? Is there some kind of argument there?

These are not very good arguments for atheism or against theism. I hope you don't think they were arguments or even good arguments Shocked.

1) Then give me an example of where belief advanced scientific progress. (And stay on the topic - you know what belief we are talking about)
2) I did not say ALL atheists - THAT would be a generalization. I stated specific atheists - ones I know.
3) The argument there is simple. Provide me with an argument for the existence of God that has not been torn apart.

I think these are all very good points: (Although you disagree)
1 - Belief in the supernatural hinders progress.
2 - No objectivity with theists (look up the word and you will see why)
3 - No valid proof for the existence of God

(And if you disagree, you have to give examples)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.182 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page November 04, 2018, 03:30:41 AM
Privacy Policy