-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Christianity
- Thread starter Jools
- Start date
evo said:
God, or the multiverse. It had a beginning so it can't be. Also we can imagine it with different properties.
Djevv said:
I think lots of things, but only one of them is a result of my atheism.
Your list does not imply "fundamentalism" it just a list of positions, most of which have nothing to do with atheism. I have said often enough that atheism is only one thing, so I know you know and therefor claims to the contrary can only be fallcious and intentionally so. I cannot see how it could be otherwise? Not sure what the point is about doctrines. Again...atheism a position about theists claims...that's it.
Only if you take philosophy to have the ultimate say in these matters. As a pysical being in a physical universe I can think on these things for an eternity but that won't reveal the nature of gravity, or the source of stars' energy, or the relationship between matter and energy. This knowledge comes only from empirical science. You can apply rules of philosophy to it, but this is navel gazing.
So stop lying about what atheism is and I'll stop making you uncomfortable about the fact that you are lying.
And we get to the silly bit where the person who uses flowery philosophical mumbo-jumbo to muddy the waters attempts to shift the burden of proof. Philosophically you know this wrong. Why do it? You know that theists claim to know something they cannot prove. You know that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim (that is the theist). This is disingenuous. There is no philosophical grey area here. Atheists are not making any claims, so what can we possibly require proof for? If I were an anti-theist and I claimed there are no gods that might be different. But I have never made that claim.
Djevv said:
We don't actually know this. The big bang is thought of as an explosion, but the best current explanation is that it is an expansion. An expansion out of what is unknown.
evo said:
Thought you'd pull me up there. ;D
Why can't I think that? If you can construct a clever philosophical circle jerk that is impenetrable but seems consistent I must concede that empiricism is false. I won't do that. If I need to spend 20 years studying philosophy in order to find the error in your logic that is 20 years I could have spent doing actual science and furthering our understanding of our universe. Why would I do that?
Djevv said:
According to the bible, an unverifiable disparate collection of fable and hear-say, god is biggest liar of all.
At bottom, philosophy is about making what we learn about the world useful to us. It is really about the understanding of context.KnightersRevenge said:
99% of this 500+ thread is basically doing philosophy. If it's a circle jerk then fine. jerk on.
Understanding gravity is useful but it's not the be all and end all.
Why can't some people specialise in philosophy while other specialise in science?
As i said, I dont believe you arent interested in philosophy because if you werent you wouldnt be in this thread arguing/discussing our unbderstanding of the world with other people. Youd be reading science journals.
evo said:
Quite right. But I find theists like to try to get tangled up in philosophical theory. I don't know for sure but I suspect a lot of what Matt Slick says is actually horseshit . (Look him up on youtube). A luddite like me can't get too deep because I would need to study philosophy. That gives pepole the idea that the philosophical argument is sound, which it may not be. But that doesn't mean that the facts about the universe that we have discovered through empiricism can be falsified through philosophy does it?
Why can't the people who specialise in philosophy stop trying suggest it trumps all.
You are right, I just find it often goes down cul de sacs that are not intended to improve undertanding but to simply get one mired in circular arguments hidden in the equivalent of a Deepak Chopra word salad.
Djevv said:
Exactly as I said.
Your position has shifted now you've been called out and realised you can't bluff us with a "mathematical proof for the existence of god". A familiar pattern is emerging here Djevy
Exactly as I said.
And yes, it's all about the axioms in this case.
Djevv said:
I wouldn't call you a liar. You are often disingenuous in your lines of argument though. For example - "my holy book says don't lie, so how could you think I would?"
The whole of human history stacks up against that being a true statement. :hihi
you seem to be suggesting that science trumps all, so what's the diff?KnightersRevenge said:
I guess it comes to what one values in life. Personally I don't think understanding quantum physics or the maths involved in black holes is the be all, end all. I'd rather try to understand reality. Each to their own.
evo said:
Evidence for no beginning? There is plenty of evidence for a beginning. Moreover I would say that even if the universe IS eternal then it is still contingent (changeable) and thus still requires an explanation of it's existence.
