Why we are not Regalining them With Facts About God

Re: atheist nemesis was just joking

CARM atheist "Big thinker" is arguing that there is no God because if there was there would be scientific evidence of God. This discussion was not on CARM bu ton my boards, Doxa forums.

The fact that we are not regaling him with scientific facts about God is proof that there is no God. Of course the assumption he makes is that "scinece is what we use to know things, science is the only knowledge." This led to the use of an analogy by Wordgazer I think about finding air pressure with a ruler. I's the wrong tool, so not all tools are right for all jobs. So BT asserts that she doesn't understand and says a ruler isn't good for finding air pressure you need a bogometer (which is part of science by the way). I try to expalin the analogy to him again: scinece is the ruler, God is the air pressure. So that' where I'm taking up.

by Metacrock on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:55 am

In answering one who might say there is only scientific knowledge.


"Real factual Knowledge?" So what's a fact? I am sitting in front of something we call a "desk." I'm really here, I'm really sitting in front of a desk. That is a fact, ergo it is knowledge. I know I'm doing, knowledge is anything I know. I did not obtain this "real factual knowledge" through scinece.

How do you know scientific knowledge is real? If you can question the non scientific empiricism knowledge by epistemic wonderment (how do you know you exist ect ect) why can't you question scientific knowledge that way?

The great Genius of the Legion of Super Heroes is Braniac 5 of the planet Calou. That is a fact. Now it's also a fact that the LSH and braniac 5 and Clous are function, but that doesn't mean that my knowledge of their membership is not factual.

you are asserting that the only "facts" worthy of the appellation are those gleaned by science. As long as you assert that you are selective excluding knowledge that doesn't fit your paradigm and thus rendering all possible knowledge subject to your paradigm that's what we call "ideology."

There are facts that are not from science, there are real things that are not given in scinece necessarily (I exist, I am here). These things I know thus they are facts thus all facts are not from scinece:

ergo scinece cannot be the only form of knowledge.

when you say it is you are merely creating a truth regime.

Big Thinker:

No, your analogy is completely incorrect. First of all, the method used to determine anything, including the existence of air pressure, is entirely dependent upon the definition of the claim. I doubt air pressure could be defined in such a way as to make a ruler make any sort of logical sense as a standard of measurement.

Meta (before):

This is typical. The analogy is brilliant. It shows the idea of using the wrong tool for a job that has to be done the right tool, the one in question is not it. To point out the the tool is wrong merely reiterates the point of the analogy and demonstrates that you don't understand it.

God is no able to be found by scinece, because he's the basis of all the stuff that science investigates. he's not part of the things that scinece can tell us about, he's the reaosn they exist. So we find him with scinece, just like you can't find air pressure with a ruler.

This speaks volumes about your acuity, rather lack thereof.

BT:

A barometer would be the obvious device considering the definition of "air pressure".

He's answering an analogy by clarifying the proper tool. That just reinforces the rightness of the analogy. Does this mean he understands what this is doing in the argument? stay tuned, same Bat time, Same Bat channel.

Meta:

Phenomenology is like the barometer. it's the more proper tool for God finding, not scinece. Science is the ruler. see you need to think about the relationships to the argument. That's how one understands analogies.

BT

Also, you since you probably aren't aware of my entire position, I am not the kind of atheist that thinks God does not exist at all.

Meta: as opposed to the kind who think he exists a little bit?

BT:

Rather, my position is that the nature of the existence of God, as described and testified to by those who believe in God is that God is conceptual and exists in the minds of those who believe in him in the same way that say love and justice are conceptual and exist in the mind. So the only reason I would require evidence of the existence of God outside of the mind is if believers claim that God exists outside of the mind.

Meta:

To you that is the same as saying "unreal" isn't it? Unless you are a Platonist. are you a Platonist?

that was exchange 1


exchange 2:

Re: atheist nemises was just joking

by Metacrock on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:29 am

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

Meta:

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

the first time is the one from the beginning that's not here on the page.

(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

exchange 3

BT:Again you have completely mis-interpreted everything I have said. I'm not demanding anything. Rather I am pointing out that the lack of evidence for the actual existence of God indicates that God is conceptual. I wish you could get my position right and then address my actual points rather than criticizing what you incorrectly assume is my position.

Meta

ahahahah Again! you just glaze right over the problem without even acknowledging it. you are still just asserting your original argument without any acknowledgment of the problem that scinece isn't suited to epistemological or metaphysical questions.

Meta:I use the analogy of the ruler trying to use a ruler to find air pressure. BT says you have to use a barometer, and thus makes my point for me. Science is no the right tool so what's next? Philosophy, the inverter of scinece.

BT:Science is how we know that God is a concept rather than something that exists outside of the mind.

Meta

But only for things that it's suited to find. Its' not suited to find God becuase God is the basis of reality, scinece can only find empirical things! It doesn't fit.

stop ignoring the issue! say something about it! this is the fifth time you have dropped the argument.

you know what? In high school debate (national forensic league) and in college debate (NDT and CEDA) you don't win an argument by ignoring it. When you ignore an argument you lose it automatically. you have lost this one five times over.

exchange 4

Metacrock wrote:

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

BT
Can you be more specific? What argument have you made?

meta
(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

BT:

Science is capable of telling us if there is evidence of God or not. So far, not.

meta
(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

notice he gives no data or any sort of scientific evidence to prove that scinece is the only form o knowledge. He's merely asserting it because it works well for the things that works well for. He's assuring it must be all knowing such that if it doesn't' provide data then the thing that is not demonstrated by that data is just not existent.

4th time we've gone over this same ground.

BT

First of all, there are two parts of this. The first part deals with whether or not science is the right tool. Science deals with and assesses evidence. As it stands, there is no evidence that supports the actual existence of God. This is a scientific conclusion, since science deals with evidence. The second part deals with the nature of God. As it turns out, there is sufficient evidence that God is a concept, a belief, a character that exists in the minds of those who believe in him.
So it turns out that science tells us that there is no evidence for the actual existence of God AND that the evidence that does exist indicates that God exists as a concept.

Meta
(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

That's a very interesting paragrph. Notice he goes from (1) scinece deals with evidence that's his answer to weather or not it's the right tool. It deals with evidence therefore it must be right tool regardless of what kind of evidence would be needed. Then he moves to (2) mo evidence for God (3) therefore since science is the way to deal with evidence and there's none for God then scinece disproves God. Then (4) he asserts God is a concept and has no evidence so it's only a concept and is not outside the head.

Also notice his opinion and science have been melded into one so with no proof of his assertion about no evidence his on opinion has become a scientific authority.

Do you see the mistake here? He's leaping over a grand canyon of logic to assume that if scinece is the only way to deal with evidence, and since it is then it must be perfect and all encompassing, there could be no corner of reality where scinece can't go.

above in no 3 I accuse of making this leap and what does he say in the 5th go round?

BT

Nope, I am not making that leap. Sorry, try again. Meta, it would be much easier for you if you simply read and comprehended my statements. If you are confused about anything all you have to do is ask.

Right after making the leap he say "I'm not making the leap," then of course charges that I don't comprehend it. I'm not bowing down to his ignorance and arrogance so therefore I don't understand. He's supposed to be the King!

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

BT:That is correct, the reason is because God does not actually exist, God is a concept.

Its perfect! what could be more fitting then that he doesn't understand what magisteria is so he just utters "that is correct." He undoes his whole argument with his ignorance and still blusters in arrogance.