Infinite Regress
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2011, 05:49 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
I'm gonna cry. I typed up a standard long post, and it was lost. Short version follows.

First off, methodological naturalism has produced a way of thinking that makes pretty cool stuff. Like computers. Name one discovery of a scientist that has any value working under supernaturalism. Nothing? That's what I mean by practical.

Second, god is implausible because everything we know about the universe indicates that complex things come from simple things, due to slow processes (Or the intervention of intelligence, the only one of which we are aware of belongs to certain animals on Earth, most notably, a particular brand of hairless apes). Any definition of capital G God I've heard of requires a complex being to exist without having come from simpler things.

Lastly, there is no reason for us to believe in a supernatural realm. After all, we could not, by definition experience it. While we must technically remain agnostic on it's existence, that's true of everything but our own consciousness. Saying that it's wrong to say the supernatural doesn't exist is like saying it's wrong to say there's no 8 foot tall gorilla in my room, when my room is only 300 square feet, and completely bare, because, after all, it could be an invisible 8 foot tall gorilla.

When responding, please bear in mind that I was much more terse this go through, so I'm not defending myself as well. But you should get the idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2011, 11:46 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
Hey, Lilith.

Ya lost me a little there.

Hey, Sines.

I feel yer pain. That's the worst.

Of course methodological naturalism is nifty. I mentioned before that science can afford to proceed as if everything has a natural cause.

Your reasons for calling God implausible don't really speak to God. Stephen Hawking has recently said that there's no need for a God, which seems akin to what you’re saying, but that is a far cry from saying there is no God.

We can experience the supernatural, it's just indemonstrable. For example, God turns me into a dolphin and I swim around the ocean for a week then return to my own body.

The gorilla argument, to me, is the same argument as the teapot in orbit of Venus. The difference between these things and God is that you can test for both of them. The hypothesis is demonstrable. Every single God hypothesis is indemonstrable.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 07:17 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
You have to tell me where I lost you if you actually want to understand =p

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 03:08 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
(27-08-2011 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Every single God hypothesis is indemonstrable.

Thank you for making my point for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 07:34 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
What do you mean every single god hypothesis is indemonstrable? If a living god is found to be less than all powerful it is then no longer capable of being a god. Many religions have fell short when an animal revered as god was witnessed being overthrown.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 08:26 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
Hey, Sines.

Way to twist. Every single means every single. Including the "There is no God" hypotheses.

Hey, Lilith.

Science relies on empirical data. That requires repeatability and testability. Supernatural occurrences are unique and untestable. No empirical data can ever be collected on them. Therefore the supernatural is scientifically indemonstrable.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 08:38 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
There are empirical gods. I discussed living gods and the volition of their own followers that when they cannot overcome a task they must not be gods. Not all religious things exist only in a supernatural sense.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 08:52 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
Hey, Lilith.

I don't get what you mean. Sure, if you think a cat is God and it gets creamed by a Buick maybe you should rethink, but that's not a God, it's a cat.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:03 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
There are religions based on such assumptions. Most of which have already been dis-proven. I am discussing the fact that there are hypotheses of gods which are demonstrable.

And you simply don't realize the awe inspiring power of the cat if you fail to heed it's warnings =p

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:30 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
Hey, Lilith.

I assumed it was implied that I was talking about supernatural Gods. You're right to call me out on saying all God hypotheses. Just the supernatural ones.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: