Atheism is incompatible with science

[Horta]

18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As I have said before, you are invited to propose a solution, 

ps. you also realise that this is classic "reversal of the burden of proof"? A staple of creationists. 

You have made the claim that rational logic can never explain existence. It isn't up to me to do anything other that ask you to back it up. 

[Mr Walker]

24 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Why would I be in that position? If I am not making a claim then there is not much reason right, we eat and I don't have to prove what I ate to myself because the evidence is that after I ate my belly was quite tight that's all the evidence I need.

jmccr8

Thank you, thank you, thank you  

Exactly what i was saying 

Now, prove to me what you ate 2 weeks ago on Friday morning  

if you cant prove it, I must assume  you  didn't eat that . (IF we apply  the principle that we must  have transferable evidences to prove anything was real ) 

You know when you eat breakfast, and what you ate .

I know when i encounter a god or an angel,  by using exactly  the same principles and forms of evidence. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Agnostics can care 

Basically an agnostic says, "I am not going to guess or believe. I will wait until I can know"

 Some may be  happy never knowing.

Others may think about it a lot. 

Hi Walker

Yes, that is a possibility as people believe or disbelieve for a myriad of reasons unique unto themselves and I really don't care why it's their business unless they step out of line and show themselves to be a danger for the whole. we discuss perspectives of god mostly so no I am not thinking about god but what some person says they know about god.

jmccr8

[Horta]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are clearly the one that wants to be indulged, you want to know whether I think reason can ever answer the "riddle of existence" the answer is obviously no, as you yourself appear to realise, going by your weaving and dodging the invitation to profer any kind of rational explanation, any old fabrication will do !

That's fine for a personal opinion. If you stop stating it as if it is an accepted fact that all must abide by, I'll have no problem  with it.

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are clearly the one that wants to be indulged, you want to know whether I think reason can ever answer the "riddle of existence" the answer is obviously no, as you yourself appear to realise, going by your weaving and dodging the invitation to profer any kind of rational explanation, any old fabrication will do !

Since the "riddle of existence" has yet to be answered, how do you contend that it is not rational and/or logical? 

[jmccr8]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Thank you, thank you, thank you  

Exactly what i was saying 

Now, prove to me what you ate 2 weeks ago on Friday morning  

if you cant prove it, I must assume  you  didn't eat that . (IF we apply  the principle that we must  have transferable evidences to prove anything was real ) 

You know when you eat breakfast, and what you ate .

I know when i encounter a god or an angel,  by using exactly  the same principles and forms of evidence. 

Hi Walker

Not sure you are using a realistic argument, food exists and people eat that is a known whereas god is not evidenced(scientifically) to exist for any of the variations of descriptions of gods.

jmccr8

 

[Mr Walker]

25 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So no real answer as to what the big g is or does. I take the religious descriptions of gods as being where the bar is set to jump and if it does not conform to the description then it is not real and as of yet no gold medal for high jump.

jmccr8

which big g?

I can tell you all about mine.

i can run through a comparative religions handbook of gods from past and present.

  I can talk about psychological constructs built upon human need, and ones evolved to answer human questions which are otherwise unanswerable.

There are no omniscient omnipotent gods which exist outside time and space and which created the universe or us 

A person might believe in them for many reasons but they do not and canot exist without magical thinking 

BUT alien beings which humans  think of and treat as gods  are much more physically possible and likely. 

This is no argument to use that "gods" do not exist however. The y are real physical, interventionist, and have been in contact with humans for as long as we have written and other sources of information 

They are gods because we name them gods, just as dogs are "dogs"  only because we name them dogs 

ps trick trivia question 

Which animal are the canary islands named after?   

 

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, Horta said:

ps. you also realise that this is classic "reversal of the burden of proof"? A staple of creationists. 

You have made the claim that rational logic can never explain existence. It isn't up to me to do anything other that ask you to back it up. 

To me, a self-evident truth, as self-evident as the truth that we exist. Your problem is not even understanding the limitations of rational thinking. I have moved on, having given full credit to reason and logic, in its domain.

[Horta]

14 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Horta

Each to their own, for me it is an expression of how they post a response many times liking the posts of both sides of a discussion because of the effort that they invest. I also like a good laugh and give people a like for their sense of humor. I do not have to agree with a persons position but can like the way they present it. I read in several areas of the forum and there are times when I am catching up on many pages in several discussions and use my likes.

jmccr8

Oh, I get why people do it and have no problem with that. I sometimes hope I don't come across as being a bit anti social because of it lol. 

Such a simple and seemingly harmless thing, yet similar things are thought to modify behaviour and influence emotions unrealistically in some people. Can also play a part in social media addiction.

I guess in some ways I can see the possibility that for people holding minority opinion, it could seem as "ganging up" on them, when the likes are piled up on their opposition. As much as I dislike certain opinions, I hold nothing against the people themselves and don't really want them to feel like that.

Like I said, perhaps I should just lighten up lol.

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Not sure you are using a realistic argument, food exists and people eat that is a known whereas god is not evidenced(scientifically) to exist for any of the variations of descriptions of gods.

jmccr8

 

gods exist also  

BUT that is not the point

Extraordinary or ordinary, there is no way either of us can prove to  another an experience which we had while alone . 

Sure you could have eaten what you claim. But maybe you  didn't eat anything or something different.

You might seek to impress me with a story of caviar and champers for breakfast (or it might be true)

Again the real point is how YOU  know what you ate, and how i know when i encounter a 'god" 

If you know you had caviar and champagne, that is enough, even if i refuse to believe you 

[jmccr8]

Just now, Horta said:

Oh, I get why people do it and have no problem with that. I sometimes hope I don't come across as being a bit anti social because of it lol. 

Such a simple and seemingly harmless thing, yet similar things are thought to modify behaviour and influence emotions unrealistically in some people. Can also play a part in social media addiction.

I guess in some ways I can see the possibility that for people holding minority opinion, it could seem as "ganging up" on them, when the likes are piled up on their opposition. As much as I dislike certain opinions, I hold nothing against the people themselves and don't really want them to feel like that.

Like I said, perhaps I should just lighten up lol.

Hi Horta

It's all good, this is the only social media site that I use and after 10 yrs of reading one does develop relationships and an appreciation for stirring debate.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Since the "riddle of existence" has yet to be answered, how do you contend that it is not rational and/or logical? 

Another, who when asked to make some wild speculation, even one that would win the "biggest lie competition", comes up completely empty. I think in that alone, your rational sense is trying to tell you something. Maybe Phlogiston can explain it ?

[jmccr8]

16 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

There are no omniscient omnipotent gods which exist outside time and space and which created the universe or us 

A person might believe in them for many reasons but they do not and canot exist without magical thinking 

Hi Walker

Burden of proof, how can you say they do not exist as there is no evidence either way?

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

BUT alien beings which humans  think of and treat as gods  are much more physically possible and likely. 

There is no physical evidence to suggest that this is true.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

This is no argument to use that "gods" do not exist however. The y are real physical, interventionist, and have been in contact with humans for as long as we have written and other sources of information 

Yes, and it usually involves magical thinking as there is no evidence.

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

They are gods because we name them gods, just as dogs are "dogs"  only because we name them dogs

Words are used to give descriptions and identity in the hope that everyone interprets things in the same way. Dogs are everywhere and understood to exist because we can measure, pet or walk with them. There are descriptions of gods that go back thousands of years so that would actually be what is used as a means of determining if god exists.

I at times wonder why would people reject those descriptions and find lesser values to create a god and both are imaginary.

Your clue is in your god/dog premiss the answer is dog 

jmccr8

[danydandan]

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

Probability studies, as well as quantum weirdness. It's all there.

But hey, here's a tune to enjoy...

 

What probability studies, you know probabilities and statistics are mathematics? Mathematics isn't science. 

What Quantum Physics weirdness have you postulated here?

Edited April 1, 2019 by danydandan

[Horta]

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Since the "riddle of existence" has yet to be answered, how do you contend that it is not rational and/or logical? 

Good luck. Quite a mission you have taken on there in trying to get a straight answer lol.

From asking this many times in this thread and others, the only answer I can decipher is that... it must be so, otherwise habitat's belief would be unfounded. As that's an impossibility, you must first supply him with a rational explanation for his perusal, or be deemed ignorant... or something....lol

Mystical philosophy 101.

ps. I will await his reply with interest though.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Horta

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, Horta said:

Good luck. Quite a mission you have taken on there lol.

From asking this many times in this thread and others, the only answer I can decipher is that... it must be so, otherwise habitat's belief would be unfounded. As that's an impossibility, the question is based on ignorance.

Mystical philosophy 101.

I have a feeling if/when this question is ever answered, scientifically or otherwise, it still will never be fully accepted.

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, Horta said:

Good luck. Quite a mission you have taken on there lol.

From asking this many times in this thread and others, the only answer I can decipher is that... it must be so, otherwise habitat's belief would be unfounded. As that's an impossibility, the question is based on ignorance.

Mystical philosophy 101.

Give it a go, it doesn't matter how bogus, invent a rational explanation of the old riddle.

 

[Horta]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I have a feeling if/when this question is ever answered, scientifically or otherwise, it still will never be fully accepted.

Quite possibly.

Though I can only imagine how people might have thought similarly at one time, regarding what is now almost universally accepted as an explanation ie. biological evolution.

Not directly comparable I know, but I find it likely that explanation for this and the mystery of consciousness are not as far away as we might think. If technology goes the way some in the industry predict... which in itself might be a big if.

[Horta]

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Give it a go, it doesn't matter how bogus, invent a rational explanation of the old riddle.

 

Lol.

You really don't get the objection at all, do you?

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

Lol.

You really don't get the objection at all, do you?

I get the objection alright, but apparently you don't get that rational thinking only deals with  inter-relationships. What can the bare fact of "existence" be related to ? 

[Horta]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I get the objection alright, but apparently you don't get that rational thinking only deals with  inter-relationships.

I take it you are referring to cause and effect? If so, I don't necessarily accept that. I think it has been demonstrated that rational logic has no trouble dealing with the concept of randomness, for instance.

Quote

What can the bare fact of "existence" be related to ? 

Who knows? Non existence? A cause of existence? An infinite existence?

For someone fond of making absolutist claims about "rational logic" and "existence" you also seem fond of applying your own version of "rational logic" to it.

You also don't seem to understand that for your claim to be valid, it would require knowing the cause of existence itself, to know it isn't rational. A big claim that.

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, Horta said:

I take it you are referring to cause and effect? If so, I don't necessarily accept that. I think it has been demonstrated that rational logic has no trouble dealing with the concept of randomness, for instance.

Who knows? Non existence? A cause of existence? An infinite existence?

For someone fond of making absolutist claims about "rational logic" and "existence" you also seem fond of applying your own version of "rational logic" to it.

You also don't seem to understand that for your claim to be valid, it would require knowing the cause of existence itself, to know it isn't rational. A big claim that.

Can you tell me of any problem that has ever been approached by science, that every proposed rational solution was immediately demonstrable, by logic, as invalid, like this one ? You are sold on rational thinking, or more correctly, would like to be sold on it, but like so very many here, there is that nagging doubt...

[Horta]

Quote

Can you tell me of any problem that has ever been approached by science, that every proposed rational solution was immediately demonstrable, by logic, as invalid, like this one ?

This doesn't demonstrate your particular claim.

Apart from that though...yes, I can think of a couple.

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are sold on rational thinking, or more correctly, would like to be sold on it, but like so very many here, there is that nagging doubt...

I'm not as sold on "rational thinking" as you believe. Humans simply don't "exist" that way. In truth, when I really ponder it I have absolutely no idea why I love my wife, for instance. I am glad that I do, however.

I'm only saying that unless you have an explanation for existence, you can't know the nature of such an explanation. This would seem unassailably true.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No need to.  He will not deny it and if you don't believe me then YOU go to the trouble of looking for it. I've got better things to do 

No my "path" is scientifically proven to work in any environment. Although some studies show it works best in a place where others share  your belief  So it would work well for you in America  

Sorry but having kids doesn't change the world for the better.  That requires specific planned behaviours to minimise your effect on the environment and to make the world a more equal and kinder place by helping others as much as you can. 

I would NOT go so far as to say that having children is selfish, because a certain number are needed to maintain the population but it is basically morally neutral .

I don't proselytise   the biblical way There are many good things about the bible's way of living. Western society has already incorporated many of them in our laws and moralities,  but it is not written for modern people and it has flaws.  i would promote a secular humanist lifestyle using ethics and moralities which are found in the bible but not exclusive to it   PLUS living a balance of spiritual and materiel lifestyle.

Any faith or belief which is positive and constructive is as good as any other  and most people pick one found in their local community    

Are yo saying that you have no interests in making the world a better place?

You have children.

It should be one of the most important things for you to  try to achieve. 

You just can't explain why the countries that are most devout have the worst conditions and shortest life spans. 

You're incessant superiority complex and nonstop nagging about how wonderful you are is not making the world a better place. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by psyche101

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

I never said people were ignorant for being rational and logical, but where rational and logical fails, as it clearly does with the "riddle of existence", it is futile to imagine it must be the only way of knowledge. That is just a faith.
 

You still have not given a straight answer to why you believe the sciences will fail with regards to answering the riddle of existance. You have been evading that as much as you can. You have provided vague ideas that indicate you think more is required but you cannot say what or why. 

Its quite clear your ideologies are predetermined and closed, despite you arguing that is not the case with you.