The Dawkins delusion...

[npts2020]

And all I did was ask for a single example of "god did it" being the conclusion with the most evidence behind it....

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, npts2020 said:

And all I did was ask for a single example of "god did it" being the conclusion with the most evidence behind it....

Do me a favour! That's the same as a racist saying my best friend is black as a defence, to his casual, cultural racist remark's.

My argument has nothing to do with the existence of anything supernatural; our (by which I mean you and I) understanding of the universe is due to a simplified version of a very complex system, I doubt there's a single person who would say "I understand it all"; yet you are confident enough to say with absolute certainty that Spinoza's wrong bc he couldn't give you an example of something that's not available to anyone.

 

Edited September 8 by dimreepr

[npts2020]

On 9/8/2024 at 7:28 AM, dimreepr said:

Do me a favour! That's the same as a racist saying my best friend is black as a defence, to his casual, cultural racist remark's.

Apparently, I am not smart enough to see the analogy. It seems more like the other way around since you are the one making extraordinary claims and in need of defense.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Apparently, I am not smart enough to see the analogy. It seems more like the other way around since you are the one making extraordinary claims and in need of defense.

What extraordinary claim am I making? Dawkins is human and humans are capable of being deluded, or does he/you know everything?

[npts2020]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:28 AM, dimreepr said:

But, god did it is just as viable an answer in science, when exploring the nebulous nature of nature, as it is in the nebulous nature of people.

This is quite an extraordinary claim, so I asked for an example. I thought the request was straightforward enough for anyone able to comprehend the English language...

Also, I never claimed humans cannot be deluded or that ANYONE knows everything.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

This is quite an extraordinary claim, so I asked for an example. I thought the request was straightforward enough for anyone able to comprehend the English language...

No it's not, (read the thread) I'm equating "I don't know" with "god did it", not that god has done anything...

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Also, I never claimed humans cannot be deluded or that ANYONE knows everything.

Frustrating, isn't it? 😣

[npts2020]

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No it's not, (read the thread) I'm equating "I don't know" with "god did it", not that god has done anything...

I have read the thread and in science you don't "know" anything, there are only provisional explanations for things until someone comes up with a better one. That is why I want an example of "god did it" being that best provisional explanation.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I have read the thread and in science you don't "know" anything, there are only provisional explanations for things until someone comes up with a better one. That is why I want an example of "god did it" being that best provisional explanation.

😣 In this context it's just a phrase, like saying "jesus christ" when we hit our thumb with a hammer; it's cultural bc we're in a such a society.

Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows "god did it" can't possible be true... 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows "god did it" can't possible be true

You first. Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows an invisible undetectable dragon can't possibly be sitting below my chair right now. 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

You first. Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows an invisible undetectable dragon can't possibly be sitting below my chair right now. 

I think you may be missing some context.

[npts2020]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows "god did it" can't possible be true... 

I make maple syrup every year. Unless you are conceding that I am a god, it beggars sensibility to claim "god did it". It's the same with virtually all human endeavors. Your turn to give a counter example...

[iNow]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

you may be missing some context

Always possible, but seemingly irrelevant to the point I was making

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Always possible, but seemingly irrelevant to the point I was making

Also irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[iNow]

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Also irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be suggesting that the acknowledgement of "we don't yet completely know" is  functionally equivalent to the assertion that "this event happened bc there is an invisible dragon below my chair."

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, npts2020 said:

It's not vegan.

 

Here I was hoping you actually had a point related to the topic under discussion worthy of consideration.

The point of the topic is, when we don't know the answer there is no 'right' way to think, until we do know the answer; incomplete answers may not apply.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be suggesting that the acknowledgement of "we don't yet completely know" is  functionally equivalent to the assertion that "this event happened bc there is an invisible dragon below my chair."

No, and  "we don't yet completely know" is not equivalent to "we will have knowledge of"...

[iNow]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No

Got it. I was wrong. Maybe you can next follow-up on the "please correct me" part of my comment?

[swansont]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:44 AM, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you can come up with an example that clearly shows "god did it" can't possible be true... 

It assumes the existence of a god, when there’s no scientific evidence of one. The issue isn't whether it’s true, it’s whether it has scientific merit, i.e. that “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” 

You need testable hypotheses in science.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The point of the topic is, when we don't know the answer there is no 'right' way to think, until we do know the answer; incomplete answers may not apply.

But there are wrong ways to think, if one is doing science.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Got it. I was wrong. Maybe you can next follow-up on the "please correct me" part of my comment?

"there's a theory, that if anyone finds out why the universe is here and what it's for, it will instantly be replaced by something even more inexplicably bizarre; there is a second theory that this has already happened" - Douglass Adams.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong and I'm not committing scientific heresy by suggesting that there are other ways of thinking about our world that science can't really address.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

It assumes the existence of a god, when there’s no scientific evidence of one. The issue isn't whether it’s true, it’s whether it has scientific merit, i.e. that “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” 

You need testable hypotheses in science.

But there are wrong ways to think, if one is doing science.

I'm assuming that god doesn't exist, consistently throughout my history here, but not everyone is doing science and they're not automatically wrong bc of that; flat earther's and there bredrin are clearly wrong, but Thomas Aquinas was clearly a scientific minded theologian who wrote many paper's and treatise right up until he had his spiritual enlightenment and abruptly stopped. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm assuming that god doesn't exist, consistently throughout my history here,

You say that as if it matters.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but not everyone is doing science and they're not automatically wrong bc of that;

Right or wrong isn’t the issue, and people not doing science is irrelevant. Your assertion was “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” so you already defined the scope as people doing science.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

flat earther's and there bredrin are clearly wrong, but Thomas Aquinas was clearly a scientific minded theologian who wrote many paper's and treatise right up until he had his spiritual enlightenment and abruptly stopped. 

Who clearly lived 500 years before modern science was developed, so I’m not seeing your point. Just seeing the tap-dancing

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You say that as if it matters.

Right or wrong isn’t the issue, and people not doing science is irrelevant. Your assertion was “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” so you already defined the scope as people doing science.

Who clearly lived 500 years before modern science was developed, so I’m not seeing your point. Just seeing the tap-dancing

It doesn't matter that's the point, god is used by Dawkins et al, as a legitimate target to discredit a perfectly reasonable, spiritual, approach to life and learning. 

Replacing "I don't know" with "god" is a personal, reasonable, choice; and since we can't prove it either way, it's somewhat moot.

And since a very large proportion of religious folk aren't babbling idiots that think the earth is flat (do they have a god?).

[swansont]

 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Replacing "I don't know" with "god" is a personal, reasonable, choice; and since we can't prove it either way, it's somewhat moot.

Now you're moving the goalposts

“god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science”

Science isn't your personal domain, so this isn't a personal choice. If you said “for me, god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”]” that's one thing; that would be a personal choice. But that's not what you said.

[dimreepr]

On 9/21/2024 at 12:39 PM, swansont said:

 

Now you're moving the goalposts

“god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science”

Science isn't your personal domain, so this isn't a personal choice. If you said “for me, god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”]” that's one thing; that would be a personal choice. But that's not what you said.

What I said was a text based version of what I meant, which you have chosen to take literally in order to attack my premise; congratulations, you are officially smarter than me, in the written word of the English language...

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What I said was a text based version of what I meant, which you have chosen to take literally in order to attack my premise; congratulations, you are officially smarter than me, in the written word of the English language...

What a novel idea, taking someone’s statement at face value instead of assuming a hidden meaning, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about your premise. The statement is wrong, and I explained why, and you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you’ve presented irrelevant arguments and logical fallacies in trying to defend it.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

What a novel idea, taking someone’s statement at face value instead of assuming a hidden meaning, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about your premise. The statement is wrong, and I explained why, and you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you’ve presented irrelevant arguments and logical fallacies in trying to defend it.

Well I'm trying to defend my premise, I don't give a rats arse that that statement is litterally wrong.

I'd make far more sense if we were actually conversing, bc my typing speed is to slow to keep up with my mouth and when the flow is interupted the eddie's cause havoc, which circles back to my premise; I'm better than them bc their not clever like me...

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Well I'm trying to defend my premise, I don't give a rats arse that that statement is litterally wrong.

That’s a problem for your credibility, IMO. Wrong statements don’t actually defend a premise