Convert an atheist.

[Arcoon Effox]

Deflesh

Arcoon Effox

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

as explained earlier, there is not a shred of evidence because 'science says so'

Also, you ignored the evidence that I posted.
Not sure what you're talking about.

I believe he's saying that science has 'poisoned the well' against Creationism. It's one of their many copypasta defenses.

I think he has that backwards...

It wouldn't be the only thing he's bass ackwards about...

[Exoth XIII]

Arcoon Effox

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

as explained earlier, there is not a shred of evidence because 'science says so'

Also, you ignored the evidence that I posted.
Not sure what you're talking about.

I believe he's saying that science has 'poisoned the well' against Creationism. It's one of their many copypasta defenses.

That's really not the case, though.

In the book Contact, the protagonist learns, via possibly illusionary contact with aliens, that buried deep within pi, the ratio of circumference to radius, is a binary message long enough to be clearly not a statistical anomaly, which strongly implies that there is a creator of the universe, and he has something to tell us. (Only an intelligent creator could build messages into universal ratios.)

Sho' 'nuff, she finds it eventually.

Hypothesis, test, confirmation.
(Needless to say, we've calculated that far into pi by now, and it's clearly fictional, but you get my point. If a deity wanted to show himself to us, he'd have better means at his disposal than telling a bunch o' yahoos in the desert what they should and shouldn't put a d**k into.)

[Arcoon Effox]

Exoth XIII

Arcoon Effox

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

as explained earlier, there is not a shred of evidence because 'science says so'

Also, you ignored the evidence that I posted.
Not sure what you're talking about.

I believe he's saying that science has 'poisoned the well' against Creationism. It's one of their many copypasta defenses.

That's really not the case, though.

In the book Contact, the protagonist learns, via possibly illusionary contact with aliens, that buried deep within pi, the ratio of circumference to radius, is a binary message long enough to be clearly not a statistical anomaly, which strongly implies that there is a creator of the universe, and he has something to tell us. (Only an intelligent creator could build messages into universal ratios.)

Sho' 'nuff, she finds it eventually.

Hypothesis, test, confirmation.

While I get what you're saying, and don't disagree with it, I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with LoveLoud's mluck's implication that 'science' is poisoning the well against Creationism. Also, I don't really think what you're saying is applicable to Creationism, for the reasons I listed a few posts back.

[Ariel Yardena Davidson]

Arcoon Effox

Exoth XIII

Arcoon Effox

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

as explained earlier, there is not a shred of evidence because 'science says so'

Also, you ignored the evidence that I posted.
Not sure what you're talking about.

I believe he's saying that science has 'poisoned the well' against Creationism. It's one of their many copypasta defenses.

That's really not the case, though.

In the book Contact, the protagonist learns, via possibly illusionary contact with aliens, that buried deep within pi, the ratio of circumference to radius, is a binary message long enough to be clearly not a statistical anomaly, which strongly implies that there is a creator of the universe, and he has something to tell us. (Only an intelligent creator could build messages into universal ratios.)

Sho' 'nuff, she finds it eventually.

Hypothesis, test, confirmation.

While I get what you're saying, and don't disagree with it, I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with LoveLoud's mluck's implication that 'science' is poisoning the well against Creationism. Also, I don't really think what you're saying is applicable to Creationism, for the reasons I listed a few posts back.

Would it be wrong of me to press that Contact was written by Sagan, an agnostic/pantheist? Not really relevant either -

But to mluck's credit, he's TRYING to find this "poison"

[Exoth XIII]

Arcoon Effox

Exoth XIII

Arcoon Effox

Deflesh

LoveLoud837

as explained earlier, there is not a shred of evidence because 'science says so'

Also, you ignored the evidence that I posted.
Not sure what you're talking about.

I believe he's saying that science has 'poisoned the well' against Creationism. It's one of their many copypasta defenses.

That's really not the case, though.

In the book Contact, the protagonist learns, via possibly illusionary contact with aliens, that buried deep within pi, the ratio of circumference to radius, is a binary message long enough to be clearly not a statistical anomaly, which strongly implies that there is a creator of the universe, and he has something to tell us. (Only an intelligent creator could build messages into universal ratios.)

Sho' 'nuff, she finds it eventually.

Hypothesis, test, confirmation.

While I get what you're saying, and don't disagree with it, I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with LoveLoud's mluck's implication that 'science' is poisoning the well against Creationism.

The well isn't being poisoned against creationism; unlike that example, creationists have yet to make a testable prediction about the universe.

[Dieu des hommes]

Cecilia Davidson

Sagan, an agnostic/pantheist?

As much as pantheists love to think of him as one of their own, he was not. He shared the same views as pretty much every agnostic atheist.

[Lokapala]

You know, I have a strong hunch that spirituality of any kind, God included, cannot be proven by science. Science is, after all, not a means for discovering immutable, indisputable truth, but rather it is a method of observation through which we attempt (with varying degrees of success) to establish objective understanding.

If something cannot be determined scientifically, would you still be interested in discussing its nature and implications?

Edit: For example, science does not dictate your favorite candy bar, what makes a movie "good" or "bad", and more pertinent to the topic, it cannot tell us what it means to "do the right thing" or what is the purpose of living.

[Deflesh]

Lokapala

You know, I have a strong hunch that spirituality of any kind, God included, cannot be proven by science. Science is, after all, not a means for discovering immutable, indisputable truth, but rather it is a method of observation through which we attempt (with varying degrees of success) to establish objective understanding.

If something cannot be determined scientifically, would you still be interested in discussing its nature and implications?

Edit: For example, science does not dictate your favorite candy bar, what makes a movie "good" or "bad", and more pertinent to the topic, it cannot tell us what it means to "do the right thing" or what is the purpose of living.

Science isn't objective.

And don't dare tell me that spirituality is a basis for morality.

Science can dictate what tastes good by understanding one's own taste buds and their reactions to different stimuli. Why you'd waste research into knowing what you like is beyond me, but it's possible.

Science has nothing to do with what makes a good or bad movie. Movies are subjective. Just because a movie is well received doesn't mean it's 'good' for everyone.

I dislike the concept of 'the purpose of life is God'. I don't like any aspect of that idealism.

[The Legendary Guest]

Lokapala

You know, I have a strong hunch that spirituality of any kind, God included, cannot be proven by science. Science is, after all, not a means for discovering immutable, indisputable truth, but rather it is a method of observation through which we attempt (with varying degrees of success) to establish objective understanding.

If something cannot be determined scientifically, would you still be interested in discussing its nature and implications?

Edit: For example, science does not dictate your favorite candy bar, what makes a movie "good" or "bad", and more pertinent to the topic, it cannot tell us what it means to "do the right thing" or what is the purpose of living.

And what is even meant by "spirituality" is difficult to determine in the first place. Try asking people what they mean by this word and you will find it nearly impossible to get a coherent definition of the term. Naturally science cannot test for a thing that cannot even be accurately defined. Same with god concepts. What science can test for is the results that these gods supposedly have on the natural world, and whatever is being attributed to "spirituality", and when this is done the concepts come up short over and over again.

You seem to be confusing science with philosophy. Science is not philosophy so it does not address matters of philosophy and philosophy cannot prove anything that is a matter of science.

[Lokapala]

Wait a minute; let's not mince words. Maybe I've been too vague. Let me go ahead and tidy up my stance a little so we don't have to waste time quibbling. I'll try and get straight to the meat and potatoes.

What I mean to say is that I, without any intention of scientifically demonstrating God's existance, would still argue the case for theistic thought.

"No, you wait a minute, Loka," you say, "we already established that science and philosophy aren't in the same arena, and I definitely didn't ask for a philosophical justification for God. I asked for hard evidence."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no extant evidence for God that OP will find incontrovertible. Your invitation to be converted will likely never, ever be satisfactorily met if you are waiting for viable scientific explanation of God's existence. Discussion over, score one for the atheist, thread closed.

So, if I plan to enter the discussion at all to begin with, I have to ask, would you be willing to consider a non-scientific justification for theistic thought? If not, why not?

[Deflesh]

Lokapala

Wait a minute; let's not mince words. Maybe I've been too vague. Let me go ahead and tidy up my stance a little so we don't have to waste time quibbling. I'll try and get straight to the meat and potatoes.

What I mean to say is that I, without any intention of scientifically demonstrating God's existance, would still argue the case for theistic thought.

"No, you wait a minute, Loka," you say, "we already established that science and philosophy aren't in the same arena, and I definitely didn't ask for a philosophical justification for God. I asked for hard evidence."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no extant evidence for God that OP will find incontrovertible. Your invitation to be converted will likely never, ever be satisfactorily met if you are waiting for viable scientific explanation of God's existence. Discussion over, score one for the atheist, thread closed.

So, if I plan to enter the discussion at all to begin with, I have to ask, would you be willing to consider a non-scientific justification for theistic thought? If not, why not?

I will not accept a non-scientific explanation because I have yet to see or hear one that can even remotely be taken as truth.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Deflesh

Lokapala

Wait a minute; let's not mince words. Maybe I've been too vague. Let me go ahead and tidy up my stance a little so we don't have to waste time quibbling. I'll try and get straight to the meat and potatoes.

What I mean to say is that I, without any intention of scientifically demonstrating God's existance, would still argue the case for theistic thought.

"No, you wait a minute, Loka," you say, "we already established that science and philosophy aren't in the same arena, and I definitely didn't ask for a philosophical justification for God. I asked for hard evidence."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no extant evidence for God that OP will find incontrovertible. Your invitation to be converted will likely never, ever be satisfactorily met if you are waiting for viable scientific explanation of God's existence. Discussion over, score one for the atheist, thread closed.

So, if I plan to enter the discussion at all to begin with, I have to ask, would you be willing to consider a non-scientific justification for theistic thought? If not, why not?

I will not accept a non-scientific explanation because I have yet to see or hear one that can even remotely be taken as truth.

The question is whether you will consider one i.e. are you are willing to see or hear one that you might accept?

[Deflesh]

Lucky~9~Lives

Deflesh

Lokapala

Wait a minute; let's not mince words. Maybe I've been too vague. Let me go ahead and tidy up my stance a little so we don't have to waste time quibbling. I'll try and get straight to the meat and potatoes.

What I mean to say is that I, without any intention of scientifically demonstrating God's existance, would still argue the case for theistic thought.

"No, you wait a minute, Loka," you say, "we already established that science and philosophy aren't in the same arena, and I definitely didn't ask for a philosophical justification for God. I asked for hard evidence."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no extant evidence for God that OP will find incontrovertible. Your invitation to be converted will likely never, ever be satisfactorily met if you are waiting for viable scientific explanation of God's existence. Discussion over, score one for the atheist, thread closed.

So, if I plan to enter the discussion at all to begin with, I have to ask, would you be willing to consider a non-scientific justification for theistic thought? If not, why not?

I will not accept a non-scientific explanation because I have yet to see or hear one that can even remotely be taken as truth.

The question is whether you will consider one i.e. are you are willing to see or hear one that you might accept?

The fact is based on past observations of claims along this line of reasoning have had a 100% failure rate, I don't see what Loka can say that will be a startling revelation.

You're welcome to say it, all the same.

[The Legendary Guest]

Deflesh

Lucky~9~Lives

Deflesh

Lokapala

Wait a minute; let's not mince words. Maybe I've been too vague. Let me go ahead and tidy up my stance a little so we don't have to waste time quibbling. I'll try and get straight to the meat and potatoes.

What I mean to say is that I, without any intention of scientifically demonstrating God's existance, would still argue the case for theistic thought.

"No, you wait a minute, Loka," you say, "we already established that science and philosophy aren't in the same arena, and I definitely didn't ask for a philosophical justification for God. I asked for hard evidence."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no extant evidence for God that OP will find incontrovertible. Your invitation to be converted will likely never, ever be satisfactorily met if you are waiting for viable scientific explanation of God's existence. Discussion over, score one for the atheist, thread closed.

So, if I plan to enter the discussion at all to begin with, I have to ask, would you be willing to consider a non-scientific justification for theistic thought? If not, why not?

I will not accept a non-scientific explanation because I have yet to see or hear one that can even remotely be taken as truth.

The question is whether you will consider one i.e. are you are willing to see or hear one that you might accept?

The fact is based on past observations of claims along this line of reasoning have had a 100% failure rate, I don't see what Loka can say that will be a startling revelation.

You're welcome to say it, all the same.

Are we in for another effort to define a god into existence do you suppose, Deflesh?

[Deflesh]

The Legendary Guest

Are we in for another effort to define a god into existence do you suppose, Deflesh?

I'll simply assume false dichotomies, red herrings, misinterpretations of popular psychology etc etc.

But I'll keep optimistic until I see it.