Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

Debating 101: Comment on the topic, not the person. To do otherwise shows an ignorance of the topic.

 

I was joking... my god.

 

There is nothing you or I could say to each other of consequence.

 

iNow made a comparison. He can't prove it. You can't prove it. It isn't provable.

 

That's all there is to this. He needs to stop making the comparison.

[WWLabRat]

Back to the topic at hand... Since you haven't provided a suitable, or otherwise, definition of god/deity, I'm taking the liberty of quoting from another thread, pinned at the top of the Religion sub-forum:

From Defining God:

 

You have identified the major problem with the "Does God Exist ?" debates -- there are at least as many unstated concepts of God as there are debaters. I strongly doubt that any consensus on a definition could be reached. Ergo, the debate is pointless.

When you address the question on a personal level you are free to formulate your own definition of God. It is on that definition that the outcome of your personal decision process hinges.

If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes, then there is a great deal of objective evidence that no such God exists. In fact, the existence of anything that regularly upsets what we have come to expect as the orderly processes of nature is antithetical to science, which seeks to uncover and explain that natural order in terms of predictive models. Without that order there can be no science.

Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong.

If you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other. In this situation neither science nor logic can be brought to bear on the question of the existence of God. The order of the universe could be mere happenstance or it could be the result of God. The question is logically undecidable.

You are free to reach your own conclusion, or forego a final conclusion. But do not deceive yourself that whatever conclusion you reach is based on rigorous logic, unless you formulate a sufficiently narrow definition of God to be able to apply empirical data. In any case you should recognize that, despite the marvelous progress of science, there is a lot that we don't know. If we knew everything the satisfaction and outright fun of scientific discovery would be lost.

 

This seems to be the common definition used by scientists who are also of a religious persuasion. So for the purpose of moving this discussion along, we should use this when referring to god/God/deity.

[Iggy]

This seems to be the common definition used by scientists who are also of a religious persuasion. So for the purpose of moving this discussion along, we should use this when referring to god/God/deity.

 

Yeah, that seems fine. Go ahead and tell iNow to use that definition. Why are you asking me? He is the one using the word God and he is the one that refuses to move past its definition.... he is the one that asked. Go ahead and present your definition to him.

 

I'm waiting to hear his response.

[doG]

You can't prove anything you've said. It's all well accepted bluster.

 

What hypocrisy!!!

[iNow]

Iggy - I've asked anyone to name one single difference between the claim that god(s) exist and the claims that corndog shitting dragons exist... a difference other than the popularity of belief. That request remains unanswered.

 

You are merely trying to shift the burden of proof to me by suggesting I'm asserting equivalence. As has been explained to you by others multiple times already, I'm instead asking for others to name a single relevant difference. That's an important distinction and why I feel no need to satisfy any burden of proof.

 

In terms of demonstrating existence or validity, a single relevant difference between god(s) and corndog shitting dragons would shut me up. It would answer my question and demonstrate my point to be fallacious. However, none have been offered, and there's good reason you and others cannot provide one. It's because there almost certainly aren't any relevant differences that can be offered.

 

I feel as if you're not approaching this discussion in good faith and that you're unable to keep a calm, cool, collected head when posting to this topic. You've already been suspended once for flying off the handle and losing your shit in this discussion, and you've been warned by staff, as well. It's unfortunate that you've not adjusted your approach accordingly. If you are unable to remain reasonable and rational and avoid such blatantly emotive posting on this subject then I really have no interest in continuing the discussion with you.

[Iggy]

Iggy - I've asked anyone to name one single difference between the claim that god(s) exist and the claims that corndog shitting dragons exist... a difference other than the popularity of belief. That request remains unanswered.

No, you didn't "ask". You "claimed".

 

 

You are merely trying to shift the burden of proof to me by suggesting I'm asserting equivalence. As has been explained to you by others multiple times already, I'm instead asking for others to name a single relevant difference. That's an important distinction and why I feel no need to satisfy any burden of proof.

So, you simply don't remember? That's fine. I can go back and find the post...

 

 

Any reasonable and rational person will stipulate that claims of the existence of god(s) are more akin to the invisible dragon claim...

So there you are, and here I am. I'm a reasonable and rational person. Are you capable of proving the above claim? No, of course you can't. You can't even remember it.

 

 

 

[john5746]

One difference is the specificity of the dragon vs God. This is a theistic thread, so we can assume we are not talking about the abstract, deist God. If we compare the Christian god to the dragon, then the comparision starts to look promising. If we then make the corndogs spiritual in nature and the dragon invisible, then I think the comparison is a good one.

 

The deist god comes from our intuition, I think, but to build mythology on top of that and then claim foul when compared to other stories is missing the point.

 

Also, I'm really irritated at iNow, because living in a world without dragons shitting corn dogs and pissing syrup is very depressing. Could you imagine a morning jog with the dragon? No pooper scooper needed! I wish I hadn't run across this idea.

Edited September 11, 2013 by john5746

[iNow]

Also, I'm really irritated at iNow, because living in a world without dragons shitting corn dogs and pissing syrup is very depressing. Could you imagine a morning jog with the dragon? No pooper scooper needed! I wish I hadn't run across this idea.

I know, right? You don't realize how much more awesome life could be until the idea is put right there in front of you!

 

 

Since Iggy obviously cannot do it, maybe someone else can offer a relevant difference between claims, something other than "one is more popular than the other?"

[Iggy]

Since Iggy obviously cannot do it, maybe someone else can offer a relevant difference between claims...

 

So, since iNow can't do it, we'll just agree that in the future he'll stop comparing God to leprechaun erections and dragon poop. Because, that's a really stupid thing to do, and not something that can be scientifically explained in the least. It makes all of us atheists look bad....

 

But the cheer leading squad doesn't think so.

 

Let's see how many -1's this post can get. You can't make an argument so you just do that. Let's do it. Let's count them. All you freakin cowards.

[WWLabRat]

Iggy, don't you get it? The point is moot. Neither of the two have physical, verifiable evidence to be able to compare the two. As such, it can't be approached in a scientific way. If however you have physical (ie observable, measurable, and repeatable) evidence of god or corndog-defecating, syrup-urinating dragons, please provide us with such evidence. I'm hungry and could go for corndogs.

And it's not the dragons, leprechauns, or even a flying spaghetti monster claims that would make atheists look bad. It's the fact that despite your beliefs, you aren't willing to view things from another point. You are dead set in your ways. According to the religion forum rules:

• Never make it personal.
  • Disagreements about beliefs should never be in the form of attacks on the believers. This isn't a place to air grievances. Civility and respect towards other members are needed here even more than elsewhere on SFN, even when you disagree.
  • Disagreements about beliefs should never be interpreted as attacks on the believers, even when they are. If you can't handle having your beliefs questioned, you don't belong here. If you feel insulted, that does not excuse you from rule 1.a.
• Don't use attacks on evolution, the big bang theory, or any other widely acknowledged scientific staple as a means of proving religious matters. Using scientific reasoning is fine, but there are certain religious questions that science cannot answer for you.
• Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

 

Stop trying to victimize yourself. It's the idea being attacked, not you.

 

Don't assume that those that are expressing their opinions here are iNow's "cheerleading squad". Just because someone's views are in line with someone else's doesn't mean they are supporting that person, merely their idea.

 

So once again, can we please keep this discussion on topic and not turn it into a back and forth pissing contest, ffs?

[Iggy]

Neither of the two have physical, verifiable evidence to be able to compare the two.

 

Good. Tell iNow to stop comparing them.

[WWLabRat]

He's not comparing them. Just showing that neither is verifiable by current scientific standards. This has been stated previously by myself and others. Please move this discussion forward and provide evidence of either or admit that there isn't proof and stop beating the same dead horse that you have for the last few pages. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive.

 

And when you read through my posts, especially if you're going to quote me, take away from it more than just one sentence. With a proper argument, there's multiple statements that should be kept together for a complete thought. I noticed in your quote that you cut out important statements that complete what I was saying. Go back and finish reading that paragraph before you continue your broken record bit.

[iNow]

...we'll just agree that in the future he'll stop comparing God to leprechaun erections and dragon poop. Because, that's a really stupid thing to do...

In what way(s) other than popularity do you suggest they are different? Why specifically do you suggest it's such a "stupid thing to do?"

[pears]

Well in fairness, scientific verification isn't the challenge to the idea of equating the two - but the nature of the idea itself, it's content and coherence. So Iggy's point stands on that basis. I.e. the two ideas are not equal, except on the grounds of scientific provability. How about the idea of a multiverse? Is that equal to a dragon poop?

Edited September 12, 2013 by pears

[Iggy]

It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive. It's getting quite repetitive.

Heh! Funny.

 

take away from it more than just one sentence

Yeah, you're more right than you know. To be honest, that was the only sentence from that post I read, and I didn't even respond to it right... Embarrasing. You're right to call me out on that. Sorry.

 

Go back and finish reading that paragraph before you continue your broken record bit.

I think I like you. LabRat is a terrible name, but despite that you seem alright. At least you're speaking up.

 

The broken record... did you notice iNow is just repeating himself in the last post? He claimed that god was equivalent to corndog pooping dragons and now he's endlessly beggaring everybody to prove his comparison. And, demanding people define his words for him. That doesn't sound like my problem.

 

He said that two things are equivalent, and I'm just standing here wondering how he's going to prove it. This isn't my problem.

 

If I sound like a broken record saying that, then fine... It's true.

 

 

By the way, Pears, verifiability hasn't been a demarcation of science since Popper. It doesn't enter into the discussion. It sounds like maybe you know that.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Iggy

[pears]

By the way, Pears, verifiability hasn't been a demarcation of science since Popper. It doesn't enter into the discussion. It sounds like maybe you know that.

 

hmm well actually I don't understand this sentence. My ignorance is showing here.

[Iggy]

hmm well actually I don't understand this sentence. My ignorance is showing here.

Oh, uhh... Karl Popper was a famous philosophy of science guy. He was the good guy. Think of him like Luke Skywalker.

 

Now, there were a bunch of bad guys too. They called themselves the "Vienna circle". You can think of them like the evil empire.

 

So, what Popper did was to prove the Vienna circle wrong about verifiability. It was a big argument. Made all kinds of headlines. He introduced the idea that falsifiability is the thing that matters to science, and not verifiability.

 

Then the death star exploded and here we are.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Iggy

[pears]

Oh OK. Thanks. Philosophy of science is not something I've read up on yet. It's on my to do list.

 

Thanks Obe Wan.

[doG]

 

Good. Tell iNow to stop comparing them.

Why? The amount of evidence supporting either is comparable, ZERO = ZERO!

[Iggy]

Why? The amount of evidence supporting either is comparable, ZERO = ZERO!

 

We've covered that...

 

 

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever.

 

Yeah, but you've believed things in your life that lack supporting empirical evidence, so that isn't it.

 

Good idea though.

[pears]

That is being more than a bit disingenuous is it not? Personal beliefs are at the heart of this discussion, most here have shown you ours now it's your turn...

 

Have you? I assumed most people here didn't have religious beliefs. How can someone show you what they do not have?

 

I can claim all sorts of things if the basis of my beliefs are kept hidden.

 

I have claimed very little. I have suggested that evidence does not always have to be scientific (and that some people might claim subjective experience as valid evidence for *them* (not OBjective evidence, SUBjective). This is hardly a grand claim. And I have suggested that the idea of God is more coherent than a corn dog pooping dragon. I have hardly claimed "all sorts of things". If you disagree with these claims how does knowledge of my spiritual life help you? Unless you want to attack that, rather than the comments I have made in the discussion.

 

What are your theistic beliefs? If you don't want us to know it points toward trolling, how can we discuss theistic scientists on an even playing field if we don't know where you stand in that field then we can't know the why of your assertions...

 

Trolling? Seriously? My spiritual life is a personal matter. I don't know why you need to know anything about it. I have merely commented on a few individual points. An 'even playing field'? This is a discussion, not a competition. I am not trying to "win" anything. I am not trying to change anyone's beliefs, or lack of. I am not even trying to change anyone's opinion. But where I see what I consider to be flawed logic or reasoning, I will comment on it. Presumably people can do the same if they see flawed reasoning in any of my posts. I do not need to know another's personal beleifs, nor they mine in order to engage in a reasonable discussion of a named topic. It is the topic and the arguments that matter to me, not the person behind them.

[doG]

 

We've covered that...

Ummmmmmmmmmmm......NO! You've argued one is more popular than the other. You seem blind to the fact the the evidence for either is the same.

 

I assumed most people here didn't have religious beliefs.

Why? I for one feel that my belief in Humanism is religious. I could also be labeled to some extent a Jeffersonian Christian in that I believe in the life and morals advocated by the man, Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not of the belief that being atheist means one cannot be religious. Contrary to many I believe Buddhism to be a religious belief and it is free of deities as well.

[Iggy]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm......NO! You've argued one is more popular than the other. You seem blind to the fact the the evidence for either is the same.

Why? I for one feel that my belief in Humanism is religious. I could also be labeled to some extent a Jeffersonian Christian in that I believe in the life and morals advocated by the man, Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not of the belief that being atheist means one cannot be religious. Contrary to many I believe Buddhism to be a religious belief and it is free of deities as well.

 

I respect your opinion.

[ydoaPs]

Oh, uhh... Karl Popper was a famous philosophy of science guy. He was the good guy. Think of him like Luke Skywalker.

 

Now, there were a bunch of bad guys too. They called themselves the "Vienna circle". You can think of them like the evil empire.

 

So, what Popper did was to prove the Vienna circle wrong about verifiability. It was a big argument. Made all kinds of headlines. He introduced the idea that falsifiability is the thing that matters to science, and not verifiability.

 

Then the death star exploded and here we are.

...and he was wrong too (hint: there's more than one criterion)

By the way, Pears, verifiability hasn't been a demarcation of science since Popper. It doesn't enter into the discussion. It sounds like maybe you know that.

 

Yes, yes it has. And it still is.

[pears]

4 Yes it is: the sound-bite version is "do unto others as you would have others do unto you": Strictly, it's the enforcement of morality that's self interest, but without enforcement it doesn't amount to much.

Animals like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

 

OK thank you. That looks quite interesting.

 

show morality and they didn't get it from any holy book.

 

I didn't suggest morality comes from a holy book. I would say that morality or a sense of morality is sonething that comes from within us. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily limited to biology. And before you say anything, this is not something I can prove, which is why I qualify it as a belief someone might reasonably hold rather than a fact.

 

5 nobody said it wasn't objective- it's even measurable. You can measure levels of neurotransmitters and hormones etc and get a pretty good idea of when someone falls in love.

 

If you limit your definiition of love to the feelings experienced in courtship, which don't necessarily last, and which don't necessarily keep people together.

 

8 Science is a bit reductionist and materialistic- had you not spotted that?

 

No, reductionism and materialism are philosophical viewpoints. Science is a tool.

 

9 ask anyone who has ever had appendicitis- or look at the design of the human eye- it's a cockup.

This is clearly not the output of some mind.

 

Fine. That's your opinion. I am not saying that people are *right* to hold such views, just that they are valid opinions which a scientist might reasonable hold (as an opinion, not as scientific 'fact').

Why? I for one feel that my belief in Humanism is religious. I could also be labeled to some extent a Jeffersonian Christian in that I believe in the life and morals advocated by the man, Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not of the belief that being atheist means one cannot be religious. Contrary to many I believe Buddhism to be a religious belief and it is free of deities as well.

 

Ok thanks. I hadn't heard religious being used in that way before.

Edited September 12, 2013 by pears