If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

Saying he's more knowledgeable might have been better.

To me, saying your agnostic is like saying your absolutely 50/50. You don't lean even a little theist or even a little atheist. You are the Switzerland of God opinions.

I think everyone has an inclination one way or the other. I can say I'm not 100% sure there are no gods, while still confidently say I lean heavily atheistic.

But, that's just my opinion.

Illiteracy: Use of subjective as objective. Redefinition fallacies (agnostic<->atheist, atheist<->fundamentalism). Use of plural as singular. Possessive used as objective.

Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

Logic error: Argument from randU fallacies.

Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

Baloney.
Piers Morgan started his argument by saying that there must be something superior to man. That's a completely stupid and retarded argument. It's not logic.

It is completely logical, Clanker. Such a statement does not cause any fallacy.

I have never made a god of the gaps argument. That presupposes that scientific truth and god are polar opposites; they can't be reconciled. That's a bogus argument.

That is is.

Isaac Newton himself said that the universal mathematical laws of physics are proof of the mind of God.

A circular argument fallacy.

I don't know for certain if he's right,

A fallacy is an invalid argument. It is not 'right' or 'wrong'. It is simply an invalid argument.

but that is a powerful argument to make.

An invalid argument is NOT a powerful argument.

A mathematically rational universe seems unlikely to come from the irrational.

Illiteracy: Use of objective as subjective.

 

[Into the Night]

Neil deGrasse Tyson identifies as an agnostic...as did Einstein and Carl Sagan and (until a supposed conversion at the tme of death) did Stephen Hawking.

But there are atheists here who would suppose that they (the atheists) are smarter than those individuals.

Courtier's fallacy. Name dropping. Redefinition fallacy (agnostic<->fame, atheist<->intelligence).

 

[Into the Night]

We can only be who we are. We don't control what arguments convince us and which ones don't.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

If you don't control what arguments convince you, who does? You're a mere automaton?

Intelligence isn't a factor for me.

So you admit you're a mere automaton.

Very intelligent people believe some wacky things. Brett Weinstein is a great example.

So you reject intelligence. Gotit.

 

[Into the Night]

You were the one who brought Neil deGrasse Tyson into this discussion because of his intelligence. So, perhaps intelligence is a factor for you...which is why I added my comments.

In any case, I submit that my position as written is a much more intelligent, logical and reasonable way to deal with the issue than the way theistic and atheistic "believers" do.

Illiteracy: Use of subjective as objective. Redefinitions (atheism<->religion, logic<->intelligence).

 

[Into the Night]

Even Einstein was amazed at the physics of the universe, and thought it must mean something profound. That is what led him to be some kind of pantheist rather than an atheist.

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

A redefinition fallacy, and a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

"Science is never going to prove...."

So, you're filling the gap between what we can't explain and science can't explain with an all powerful entity....

Buzzword fallacy.

There is no 'gap'.

 

[Into the Night]

Science doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't directly answer philosophical questions.

Science is an empirical method which makes accurate predictions about velocity, momentum, the movement and exchange of energy. We know for the most part how gravity behaves, but 500 years after Newton we still don't really know what gravity is or why it exists at the level of ontology.

People who didn't have a science background in college often overestimate what science can actually answer.

What science can do is give us a better picture of the physical behavior of the universe. And that information can inform philosophical and metaphysical deductions.

Redefinition fallacy (mathematics<->empirical).
Science is not a college. Science is not an 'answer'. Science is not an image. Science is not a location. Science is not philosophy. Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'.

 

[Into the Night]

You pick the word to describe what science hasn't done. Describe.. define... Explain... Prove... Whatever you'd like.

You describe, however you like, what it is that they haven't done.

You are filling in what's missing with a God.

Science is not religion. There is no 'gap'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You are making a massive assumption that science can answer each and every question out there.

Almost no reputable scientist and philosophers agree with you there.

The reason relatively few scientists identify as steadfast flag-waving atheists is because many of them are awestruck by the internal harmony, intelligibility, and rationality of the universe.

None of the giants of science who were the fathers of genetics, electromagnetism, general relativity, Big Bang cosmology, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background were flag-waving atheists. James Clerk Maxwell was a practicing Christian. Two Catholic priests discovered genetics and the expanding universe. Einstein was some sort of a pantheist. Arno Penzias was a religious man.

Other than Richard Dawkins, who is only a zoologist, most flag-waving belligerent atheists are not scientists and typically have no science background. The people involved in looking at the deepest questions in physics and cosmology are often really struck by the harmony and mathematical rationality of the universe, and are usually not so quick to blow it off as a random cosmic accident.

Science is not an 'answer'. Science is not people. Courtier's fallacy. Science is not a religion or a person. Science is not a 'gain' or a 'loss'.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. Atheism is not religion. The Universe has no known boundary. Mathematics is not logic. There is no such thing as a 'random cosmic accident'.

Illiteracy: Use of subjective as objective. Use of possessive as objective. Buzzwords.

 

[Into the Night]

You pick the word to describe what science hasn't done. Describe.. define... Explain... Prove... Whatever you'd like.

You describe, however you like, what it is that they haven't done.

You are filling in what's missing with a God.

There is nothing to 'fill'. There is no 'gap'.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay


No way. I have no idea of the odds of either being the correct blind guess. I have no idea of which it is...and I have no idea of which is the more likely. The "evidence" is the same for both sides.

Math error: Failure to define boundary. Failure to define randX. Probability is not a 'blind guess'. It is completely accurate.

Quantity of evidence is immaterial. Strawman fallacy.

Any leaning being done...is being done on a guess. That is my point. It is almost impossible to persuade someone making a direct guess or a leaning guess...no matter the direction...to change to a "stop with the guessing, direct or leaning. I am especially concerned with the non-theistic side...because that is the side that must be strong. The agnostic position is the strong one...the unassailable one.

That is what we are discussing...our opinions. I thank you for sharing yours with me.

Even opinions have to able to conform to the demands of logic, mathematics, English as a language, any theory of science, and philosophy.

 

[gfm7175]

You are so out of your depth on this one.

This is YOUR issue, skidmark...

Science relies on the concept of the "null hypothesis" when testing any given claim. It is a perfectly rational method for assessing the truth value of any claim.

You then gather evidence to test AGAINST the null. If you have sufficient evidence you are sure you are less likely to be making a Type I error (false positive) then you REJECT THE NULL hypothesis.

So far insufficient evidence has been presented to reject the null hypothesis without having a high likelihood of a "false positive" result.

It's the basis of how drugs are tested for efficacy, it's the basis of how any hypothesis is tested. It's even the basis of the justice system in the US (you start with the Null of "not guilty" and then test against that. )

Now, move along. Or learn more about the topic.

Religion is not science, skidmark...

 

[gmark77]

Glad you enjoyed it.


You tell me what the definition of atheism is...and then tell me to look up what implicit atheism is. C'mon.

My point is that when someone uses "atheist"...you have to ask other questions, because the word itself is a mess.

Under any circumstances...why not just say what you mean rather than use the word atheist.

Fact is, any atheist uses that word as a self-descriptor because he/she has made a guess that there are no gods. Most hide that fact, because they want to bloviate about being scientific and using evidence....and mocking the theists. But atheists are just like the theists...making guesses about the unknown.


I have been discussing this topic for fifty years...and I understand it a lot better than you.


I read it very carefully. And I can show you definitions of atheism that are much different from the one you gave.

If you think you know the topic better or more thoroughly than I...you are mistaken.

But...be smug rather than actually discuss the subject. That is your best bet.

You can't understand this topic apparently. LOL. I'm so bored of anti-atheists carrying their whines to atheists and misrepresenting what atheism is. Just because you're scared of the concept.

Give me a break. So lame.

 

[ZenMode]

There is nothing to 'fill'. There is no 'gap'.

There's a gap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[ZenMode]

Science is not religion. There is no 'gap'. Buzzword fallacy.

Sure, Jan.

 

[ZenMode]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

If you don't control what arguments convince you, who does? You're a mere automaton?

There is no self that decides whether or not "you" are convinced.

So you admit you're a mere automaton.

Depends what you mean by automation.

So you reject intelligence. Gotit.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't understand this topic apparently. LOL. I'm so bored of anti-atheists carrying their whines to atheists and misrepresenting what atheism is. Just because you're scared of the concept.

Give me a break. So lame.

What's to be scared of?

 

[Into the Night]

There's a gap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Nope. No gap. Religion is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure, Jan.

So you insist on being illiterate here as well.