Anonymous said... Pix: "I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.
God is love! That is the character of God, the image in which man is created; our ability to love is an outgrowth of God's character, God is eternal and therefore universal thus his love is universal. God's love is the principle upon which the universe was created, upon which morality is based.Those are logical extensions from basic Christian assumption.
when I complained about his assumption that Christians must prove God every time we talk about God he asserts that I am complaining about the questioning of God itself, as though Chritians can't stand for others to question their religion:
Px: Of course, when YOU are asked to support a claim about your religion it "is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid". Heaven forbid a Christian should ever have to do such a thing!And THIS is why religion is unreliable.
One would think its because it's not scientific now we find it's because Christians get tired of arguing for God every time they mention God. In fact he's ignoring the answer I gave pretending like I did not give it. Apparently pixie can't follow a simple sentence and he's always reading the worst motive into any Chritian statement.In response to the assertion that I never defend my belief in God I wrote:
Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,I've made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don't have to prove God every time I talk about Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,
To which he responds: "Which of those arguments is PROOF?" I am having a bit of trouble seeing this, First of all I never said I can prove God,I said I don't have to prove it. He takes that as a challenge that i can prove it; He asks which of my arguments is proof? Then he says:
I seem to remember you making a big deal about ration warrants. Why would you do that if you have PROOF? You would not. The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.
"Ration Warrant" (Rational warrant") essentially means a good reason to believe something. The point I've made many times in the past is that we don't have to prove the existence of God as long as we can provide a rational warrant for belief. The problem is atheists refuse to recognize a real reason. They can never be honest about facts or about logic. I never said I do absolute proof and never denied about rational warrant.
Now we come to an issue we have been dancing around through this whole week. Pix assumes that modern laws of physics were founded upon hypotheses that were later validated by scientific observation thus proving that only the scientific method can establish facts and prove theiries about the world.My argument was that the assumptions upon which laws were already accepted as proven when the were chosen as assumptions and thus they were not validated by science until after. That means other methods were used to select them. Pix never answers this argument instead he changes his position.
Joe: No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestablished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.br>
Instead of giving a rational answer he storms:"Can you actually make an argument? All you have is this insinuation, but to me it looks empty." I don't know what "insinuation" he's talking about; I made a clear argument that the basic assumptions that led to the development of the scientific method were not themselves validated by science when they were assumed. They used other methods such as logic and so might we. He takes my argument to mean that we can trust unproven methods:
"If you think Newton's laws, say, are based on an unproved assumption, say what it is. Say exactly how it is bad science. Present the reasoning." He's apparently tacked on to that misconstrued assumption that I'm saying that laws of Newton are bad science. Where he got that I do not know.
My argument is clearly that modern science is built upon assumptions that were not put in place by science since they were building blocs that led to science.They were understood before science evolved.Thus there must be some pre scientific methods that can be trusted:
Joe: Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? He did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan and the Air Pump.That is a book that gives us a good understanding of the process through which modern science evolved.
"I think Newton's laws were a big part of establishing the assumption that the universe follows laws (if it was not done earlier). Newton established that at the same time as he established his laws." Good God. He thinks Newton had something to do with it. We need to contact the Smithsonian at once.Newton established that the universe runs on laws at the the time he established his laws? Good timing, I;m going to make some laws then I'm going to establish that laws are important. if this guy really knew anything about ewton hewoudknowthahe was a Chritian,so he assumed God created laws to run the universe that had been assumed for 2000 years.
Then he mysteriously changes his position and wants to assert that he always asserted that the assumptions were proven to begin with.
After: "As long as we agree 'they make laws from proven assumptions', that is fine with me." Hey what does it matter what we say as Long as you say I'm right?
he then cocedes:
"I do not know when they were established, but I guess before or by Newton. However - and this is important - I invented a hypothetical situation where it happened afterward. Do you see where I said 'Let us suppose'? That indicates that what follows is hypothetical." But he's still ignoring my point, Apparently he really can't follow a discussion,
He explains: "Even in the hypothetical situation in which the assumption was established later, the fact that it was established at some point means his laws are good, reliable science."
I can see his point but there are problems. First he was not arguing hypothetically,we clearly had a dispute going about history not hypothetical. I can see his point that it doesn't matter as long as they were validated later, but that does change his argument, because if they were validated first by other means and proven later by science that at least partially validated the other means as well
I want to go back to one thiung he said:"The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion" I do not advance a rational process that onvert sugestions to certain nor do I advocateone, Taht rocesshas been workedin ne,I havegone fronsuggestiontocertaindduetomy own experinces of God. God is realso myxperinesof God are real.   the Birtt book