quote:Originally posted by twinky: In other words, I think KoM and Tom are only concerning themselves with varieties of theism that make predictions that are distinguishable from non-theistic theories via some sort of empirical test.
So who are they talking to? I don't think I know any of those theists. I'm certainly not one of them. I guess I'll just leave you guys to it.
Really? I know a few personally, and am aware of a much greater number. The "intelligent design" movement is one example, but there are many others.
Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine. I'll let you hash this out with them. With the disclaimer that whatever you decide implies nothing whatsoever about my God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again : Do you believe that prayer has a beneficial effect on the health of the one prayed for?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine.
How does "narrow" apply here? Your definition of God is actually considerably narrower. That your God is less limited does not mean that your definition is. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine. I'll let you hash this out with them. With the disclaimer that whatever you decide implies nothing whatsoever about my God.
In addition to what Tom and Karl said, if you don't mind, I'd really rather not be called "honey" by anyone other than my girlfriend. Thanks.
Also, I don't think anyone specifically stated that they were attempting to address "kmbboots' brand of theism" in this thread... ...but I suppose I can't be certain since I don't have a clue about your conception of the divine or what, if any, religion you follow.
However, I think the vast majority of people on this planet believe in some sort of supernatural and/or divine agent(s) that affect the world in ways that should be empirically distinguishable from non-divine predictions. Therefore KoM's example of prayer positively affecting health is apt, though as Dagonee has noted it would be very difficult to devise a practical test that would yield concrete results.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Again : Do you believe that prayer has a beneficial effect on the health of the one prayed for?
Sure. Here is one possible way: Alice has a disease, easily cured by antibiotics. In response to the prayer of Alice's mom, God, in the beginning of time created the possibility of antibiotics and inspired scientists to find them. Yay! Billions of years later, Alice can be cured.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine. I'll let you hash this out with them. With the disclaimer that whatever you decide implies nothing whatsoever about my God.
In addition to what Tom and Karl said, if you don't mind, I'd really rather not be called "honey" by anyone other than my girlfriend. Thanks.
Sorry. It is meant as an attempt to keep my post friendly. I find in RL it takes the edge off my somewhat abrasive personality.
You have a girlfriend?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine. I'll let you hash this out with them. With the disclaimer that whatever you decide implies nothing whatsoever about my God.
Also, I don't think anyone specifically stated that they were attempting to address "kmbboots' brand of theism" in this thread... ...but I suppose I can't be certain since I don't have a clue about your conception of the divine or what, if any, religion you follow.
However, I think the vast majority of people on this planet believe in some sort of supernatural and/or divine agent(s) that affect the world in ways that should be empirically distinguishable from non-divine predictions. Therefore KoM's example of prayer positively affecting health is apt, though as Dagonee has noted it would be very difficult to devise a practical test that would yield concrete results.
That surprises me. I do know quite a few theologians and I don't know that any of them think that God submits to being tested. But as I said, if you can find those who do, knock yourself out.
quote:Honey, if they agree to that very narrow definition of God then their theism has very little to do with mine.
How does "narrow" apply here? Your definition of God is actually considerably narrower. That your God is less limited does not mean that your definition is.
quote: Originally posted by twinky: In other words, I think KoM and Tom are only concerning themselves with varieties of theism that make predictions that are distinguishable from non-theistic theories via some sort of empirical test.
Seemed to me like that narrowed the field, God-wise.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You have a girlfriend?
Yes. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Last I heard, KoM had a girlfriend as well. And Tom's even married!
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That surprises me. I do know quite a few theologians and I don't know that any of them think that God submits to being tested. But as I said, if you can find those who do, knock yourself out.
I don't think a testable god must necessarily be one who "submits" to testing.
Having said all of this, I myself have no interest in attempting to evidentially support or discredit the existence of the divine. I do, however, fully support rebuttals of theistic theories that purport to be scientific (e.g. "intelligent design"), in addition to rebuttals of purported "proofs" of the divine.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Again : Do you believe that prayer has a beneficial effect on the health of the one prayed for?
Sure. Here is one possible way: Alice has a disease, easily cured by antibiotics. In response to the prayer of Alice's mom, God, in the beginning of time created the possibility of antibiotics and inspired scientists to find them. Yay! Billions of years later, Alice can be cured.
That is a possible way; but as I think you grasped perfectly well, I meant by direct causation. You pray for the recovery of someone; that someone gets better, which they would not have done if you had not prayed. Do you believe in such an effect?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You have a girlfriend?
Yes. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Last I heard, KoM had a girlfriend as well. And Tom's even married!
You do know I was teasing?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That surprises me. I do know quite a few theologians and I don't know that any of them think that God submits to being tested. But as I said, if you can find those who do, knock yourself out.
I don't think a testable god must necessarily be one who "submits" to testing.
Having said all of this, I myself have no interest in attempting to evidentially support or discredit the existence of the divine. I do, however, fully support rebuttals of theistic theories that purport to be scientific (e.g. "intelligent design"), in addition to rebuttals of purported "proofs" of the divine.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Again : Do you believe that prayer has a beneficial effect on the health of the one prayed for?
Sure. Here is one possible way: Alice has a disease, easily cured by antibiotics. In response to the prayer of Alice's mom, God, in the beginning of time created the possibility of antibiotics and inspired scientists to find them. Yay! Billions of years later, Alice can be cured.
That is a possible way; but as I think you grasped perfectly well, I meant by direct causation. You pray for the recovery of someone; that someone gets better, which they would not have done if you had not prayed. Do you believe in such an effect?
Who is to say that antibiotics are not a direct response to the prayer of Alice's mom?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if Alice's mom hadn't prayed, (in your theoretical theology), then we might not have had antibiotics? I supposed I should feel grateful to Alice's mom . . .
. . . but I'm more inclined to feel grateful to the hardworking scientists who discovered germ theory and subsequently anti-biotics. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boothby171, you asked for a definition of God. You did not ask for a list of everything I believe God has done/is doing. That would, as Dag pointed out, be much longer.
Dictionary.com defines human as "a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo" That doesn't tell us anything about whether or not humans eat lunch, surf the web, or bake chocolate chip cookies. But neither does it deny that they do.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: So if Alice's mom hadn't prayed, (in your theoretical theology), then we might not have had antibiotics? I supposed I should feel grateful to Alice's mom . . .
. . . but I'm more inclined to feel grateful to the hardworking scientists who discovered germ theory and subsequently anti-biotics.
Could additionally be in response to the prayers of billions of other mothers. And why wouldn't you still be grateful to the scientists? God working in them hardly detracts from their work.
My point is that without knowing the reasons and methods of God, the ways that God works aren't measurable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am asking a very specific question. I am not asking what 'could be', I am asking a question about what you believe. Does prayer work, without any indirect causation such as you suggest?
quote:God working in them hardly detracts from their work.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am asking a very specific question. I am not asking what 'could be', I am asking a question about what you believe. Does prayer work, without any indirect causation such as you suggest?
quote:God working in them hardly detracts from their work.
I strongly disagree.
My belief is possibly, sometimes. edit: And why would direct vs indirect causation matter?
Why do you think that working according to God's will detracts from the work?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The type of "direct effect" you are describing would be magic, not prayer.
I don't think so. I ask a friend of mine to do me a favour; whatever it is, it would not happen without my asking, but it may happen if I do ask. Is this magic? I hardly think so.
quote:My belief is possibly, sometimes. edit: And why would direct vs indirect causation matter?
Because direct causation is much easier to study; I want to begin with the easy problems. Now, if there is sometimes a direct effect that does not proceed through other-explainable causes, why should that not be measurable?
About the indirect effects : It seems rather odd that prayers in 1950 should be so much more effective than those in 1930. Surely your god is timeless? Yet you seem to be asserting that he is a hundred times more likely to cure, say, pneumonia, after 1950. Bit odd, that.
quote:Why do you think that working according to God's will detracts from the work?
Well, that's not the way you phrased it at first. But even as you have put it now, I do think it rahter unpleasant to have some outside force making decisions for me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My belief is possibly, sometimes. edit: And why would direct vs indirect causation matter?
Because direct causation is much easier to study; I want to begin with the easy problems. Now, if there is sometimes a direct effect that does not proceed through other-explainable causes, why should that not be measurable?
About the indirect effects : It seems rather odd that prayers in 1950 should be so much more effective than those in 1930. Surely your god is timeless? Yet you seem to be asserting that he is a hundred times more likely to cure, say, pneumonia, after 1950. Bit odd, that.
KoM, you keep reminding me of the joke about a man who loses his keys on Main Street but insists on looking for them on 5th Avenue because the light is better.
quote:
quote:Why do you think that working according to God's will detracts from the work?
Well, that's not the way you phrased it at first. But even as you have put it now, I do think it rahter unpleasant to have some outside force making decisions for me.
Working according to God's will does not mean having giving up free will. But that is a very different discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. Here is one possible way: Alice has a disease, easily cured by antibiotics. In response to the prayer of Alice's mom, God, in the beginning of time created the possibility of antibiotics and inspired scientists to find them. Yay! Billions of years later, Alice can be cured.
I really don't know how to respond to that. it allows you to see an undefined God in everything, while (at the same time) it allows me to see an ill-defined God in absolutely nothing at all. Amazing.
dkw,
quote:Boothby171, you asked for a definition of God. You did not ask for a list of everything I believe God has done/is doing. That would, as Dag pointed out, be much longer.
I'm not asking for you to tear a page from God's personal planner. I'm asking people who feel that they "know" what God is to tell me what he is. People say "God can do this, or he can do that," yet when we try to determine (by "we" I mean me, KoM, and TD, among others; if they don't mind the association) whether those statements are true or false, we're told, "well, we don't mean that God does it quite that way,"
So far, the one definition we've gotten for God is so general as to be meaningless. kmmboots has also presented that definition as being completely outside the realm of science (since it is not only the value being measured, but the very measuring stick, itself!).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is the light better on 5th, a large number of people have been known to lose their wallets there. I may not find what I originally wanted, but I'll almost certainly find something. That's how science works. As opposed to theology, which at least in this thread works by saying "well, that's not quite what I meant by 'keys'".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, the idea that God is outside the realm of science is what dag and kate have been saying all along.
And I don't find the definition I gave to be meaningless, although it certainly is outside the realm of science. But again, that's pretty much my point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it is also outside the realm of meaningful discourse. What does it mean to say 'X is the ground of being'? What possible impact does this have on human life? Even if it were somehow true, how would it affect us?
Possibly we will have to settle the issue with a nice little war.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I get most out of these discussions is that God (as almost everyone seems to define him) is unrealiable. Most people wouldn't use that word, of course, but can any of those same people name one objectively observable thing that God can do and always does. (I should qualify that with "useful thing" to avoid answers like, "He reliably remains hidden", etc.)
He doesn't reliably heal the sick. He doesn't reliably comfort the needy. He doesn't reliably feed the hungry. He doesn't even reliably answer prayers except in some vague pseudo-zen "whatever follows the question is the answer" kind of way. And he doesn't give the same answers to different people even if the question is as straightforward as "Which church is Your True Church?"
He gets credit for everything good, but takes no blame for anything bad. He "works through his servants" except, of course, when his servants aren't doing what we think God wants, regardless of whether they think so or not. (and vice-versa, I'm sure.)
In short, He doesn't actually do anything that can be demonstrated. And for some, that's the beauty of him, I guess.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect dkw and Dag would say that this has been their point all along. And I will reply that I completely agree, and that this is why I consider their god an utterly useless concept. Which, I suppose, more or less ends the discussion, at least until I come to power and can have people thrown in re-education camps. I must say I'm impressed : You've summarised a seven-page thread in one cogent post.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: KoM, you keep reminding me of the joke about a man who loses his keys on Main Street but insists on looking for them on 5th Avenue because the light is better.
Why would you say that, kmbboots? As far as I can tell, all your hypothetical example "proves" is that God didn't answer any prayers related to bacterial diseases until the '50s.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . but I'm more inclined to feel grateful to the hardworking scientists who discovered germ theory and subsequently anti-biotics.
Antibiotics are a very interesting case and point in this debate because penicillin's discovery was the result of serendipity rather than hard work. For those of you who maybe unfamiliar with the story, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin when a petry dish he was using to culture bacteria in one of his studies, was accidentally contaminated with a mold that killed the bacteria. Alexander Flemings insight and hard work in identifying what had happened and pursuing shouldn't be neglected but the discovery itself would never have happened it unless that mold spore had landed on his petry dish.
So did the mold spore land on Alexander Flemmings petry dish because of random luck or did God cause the mold spore to hit the petry dish of someone who had the ability and inclination to identify the importance of the event?
I'm sorry to say that there is no scientific way to investigate that question.
quote:As far as I can tell, all your hypothetical example "proves" is that God didn't answer any prayers related to bacterial diseases until the '50s.
Wow, that's more than a bit of stretch. No one has suggested that antibiotics are the only way God has answered prayers related to bacterial disease. kmboots example was intended to illustrate how God could answer prayers for healing in ways that would be undetectable by science. There was never an implication that this was the only way God ever answered prayers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The book Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainance is highly relevant to this discussion.
If you haven't read it, I recommend you to this site and read (at least) chapter 19.
Here are two passages I consider to be highly relevant.
quote:Philosophical mysticism, the idea that truth is indefinable and can be apprehended only by nonrational means, has been with us since the beginning of history. It's the basis of Zen practice. But it's not an academic subject. The academy, the Church of Reason, is concerned exclusively with those things that can be defined, and if one wants to be a mystic, his place is in a monastery, not a University. Universities are places where things should be spelled out.
quote:Quality is not a thing. It is an event.
Warmer.
It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object.
And because without objects there can be no subject...because the objects create the subject's awareness of himself...Quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible.
Hot.
Now he knew it was coming.
This means Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!
Now he had that whole damned evil dilemma by the throat. The dilemma all the time had this unseen vile presumption in it, for which there was no logical justification. that Quality was the effect of subjects and objects. It was not! He brought out his knife.
"The sun of quality," he wrote, does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. They are subordinate to it!.
If you replace the word "quality" in through out chapter 19 with the word "God", or the word spirityality, or the word "good", or the word "ethical", or the word "beauty", or the word "love", then you can perhaps begin to understand what we are saying when we say that God is not a subject which can be understood as the object of a scientific study.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:you can perhaps begin to understand what we are saying when we say that God is not a subject which can be understood as the object of a scientific study.
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree completely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Wow, that's more than a bit of stretch. No one has suggested that antibiotics are the only way God has answered prayers related to bacterial disease. kmboots example was intended to illustrate how God could answer prayers for healing in ways that would be undetectable by science. There was never an implication that this was the only way God ever answered prayers.
Nevertheless : If we assume that antibiotics were the answer to prayers, then it is clear that there were a lot more answered prayers in the 1950s than in the 1930s. Nie?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The book Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainance is highly relevant to this discussion.
If you haven't read it, I recommend you to this site and read (at least) chapter 19.
Here are two passages I consider to be highly relevant:
quote:(Mystical twaddle)
If you replace the word "quality" in through out chapter 19 with the word "God", or the word spirityality, or the word "good", or the word "ethical", or the word "beauty", or the word "love", then you can perhaps begin to understand what we are saying when we say that God is not a subject which can be understood as the object of a scientific study.
I do feel that any 'philosophy' that can be convincingly imitated by a phrase generator does not actually qualify as an argument.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yeah, the idea that God is outside the realm of science is what dag and kate have been saying all along.
I think that it's more correct to say that they are making sure that their definition of God keeps him fully outside the realm of science. Every time one of us challenges even the slightest inkling of a useful definition, we are told, "nope; that's not what I meant!" And every time we ask for clarification, we're told, "Oh, now you're playing games," or "But that's as clear as we can make it!" or "I'd tell you, but I just don't have enough time, or the internet just doesn't have enough space," etc.
Sywak's Second Law in action.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you can also exchange the word "quality" with the phrase, "in my pants," and it gets really funny.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it's more correct to say that they are making sure that their definition of God keeps him fully outside the realm of science. Every time one of us challenges even the slightest inkling of a useful definition, we are told, "nope; that's not what I meant!" And every time we ask for clarification, we're told, "Oh, now you're playing games," or "But that's as clear as we can make it!" or "I'd tell you, but I just don't have enough time, or the internet just doesn't have enough space," etc.
Wah! Wah! They won't let us oversimplify a complex subject so our sophistic refutations work! Wah!
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have no problem with god falling outside the scope of science if people would stop trying to push him into it. It would have been rather hypocritical of me to advocate that position on the last intelligent design thread and then turn around and attaack it here. The fact that I don't see the utility in such a belief for myself doesn't mean that no one else does, or should; the fact that all but one of the religions I've studied simply do not resonate with me in the slightest has a lot more to do with why I'm an atheist than the utility of belief or unbelief.
Also, I quite enjoyed Robert Pirsig's second book, which was more philosophical treatise and less novel than Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. His Metaphysics of Quality is actually both interesting and useful. A worthwhile read. Also, it contains -- surprisingly enough -- one of my favourite lines in fiction.
(I won't post the line here, because it's about sex. Oddly enough, a number of my favourite lines in fiction are about sex. )
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Wah! Wah! They won't let us oversimplify a complex subject so our sophistic refutations work! Wah!
Well Dag, I have yet to see a straight answer from you to an extremely simple question. If all prayers for recovery from disease were granted, would we know about it, or not?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I asked KoM for a very specific thing to back up a claim he made: an experiment that would test whether a Creator exists. It seems to me he is the one avoiding coming to a conclusion here.
And we just asked you to explain just what it is you're talking about (i.e., Just what is this "God" thing you keep refering to?)
quote:Also, it seems to me that Sywak's Second Rule is really just a whining defense of the common practice of Making up Stupid Strawgods.
and
quote:Wah! Wah! They won't let us oversimplify a complex subject so our sophistic refutations work! Wah!
Thank you for invoking Rule 5:
quote:RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.
...or a whiner.
Meanwhile, the excuses I listed that you, kmbboots and dkw used was accurate, such as your own: "I'm not capable of completely answering that question - certainly not within the storage capacity of UBB"
So, every time someone catches you at your own game, you accuse them of being a whiner? Way to go!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, KoM, I have yet to see a straight answer from you to an extremely simple request: If the existence of a creator is the proper subject for science, propose an experiment to test that existence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beg your pardon, boothby. I gave you a very consise definition. It's not my fault you don't find it useful.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the issue there is that y'all are being rather slippery with your definition of "a creator." I submit that the existence of several TYPES of creator would be a proper subject for science, but that there are several other types -- i.e. the irrelevantly hypothetical types -- which are untestable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I took your definition. "God is the Creator and the Creation," or some such thing. If that's all he is, then, well, fine. By accepting that the Universe exists (can we all, at least, accept that the Universe exists?), then by definition, your narrowly defined God exists. Or at least partially exists--the part of your God that is the Creation. But the part that is the Creator...
Well, if the Universe is God, and the Universe created itself (such as with the Big Bang), then I suppose one could say that God created the Universe.
But, according to you, that's all that God is. SOmething tells me that's not the extent of the God that most believers here believe in. Is that a sufficient God for you? Does that God provide any meaning? Or use?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we just asked you to explain just what it is you're talking about (i.e., Just what is this "God" thing you keep refering to?)
KoM is the one who made a claim about the existence of a creator being the proper subject of science. Surely he wouldn't say that without knowing what it is?
Boothby, you seem to be oversimplifying your own rule. Let's list the elements of your charge:
quote:1.) making sure that their definition of God keeps him fully outside the realm of science.
You have assigned a nefarious motive to something without one whit of justification.
quote:Every time one of us challenges even the slightest inkling of a useful definition,
Gee, how is it that "useful" means "subject to verification by science"? And you accuse us of defining something to meet an agenda.
quote:we are told, "nope; that's not what I meant!"
When one of you insists on saying something that's not what I meant, what should I say?
quote:And every time we ask for clarification, we're told, "Oh, now you're playing games," or "But that's as clear as we can make it!" or "I'd tell you, but I just don't have enough time, or the internet just doesn't have enough space," etc.
Ah, see, I have said I don't have enough time or space to describe fully my beliefs in God. Where you are utterly, totally, and completely wrong (not to mention out of line and damn near lying about me) is when you assign the motive of "making sure that [my] definition of God keeps him fully outside the realm of science."
Especially when you and KoM and TD have been attempting to redefine him so that he fits within science. Or to redefine useful to that end.
quote:So, every time someone catches you at your own game, you accuse them of being a whiner? Way to go!
You shat all over this discussion with your sophmoric rules.
KoM has repeatedly demanded things from me that he has no right to demand. I do not think God is the proper subject of science. I don't think that any experiment that proves or disproves the effects of prayer brings us one whit closer to the original subject of discussion. KoM has repeatedly failed to show how it would, simply repeating "I'm starting off small."
quote:RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.
You seem to be under the impression that "all else" has failed. It hasn't. No one has made a single argument to anything I believe on this thread that amounts to more than "if we can't measure it, it doesn't matter."
I don't call you a whiner because you have somehow brought me to bay. I call you a whiner because you resorted to insults and distorted the whole purpose of the discussion.
If KoM can demonstrate an experiment to test the existence of a creator, well and good. Until then, he's merely rehashing his tired old arguments about prayer.
You think he's winning or I'm failing because you buy those arguments. I don't care about those arguments because they entirely miss the point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:ag, the issue there is that y'all are being rather slippery with your definition of "a creator." I submit that the existence of several TYPES of creator would be a proper subject for science, but that there are several other types -- i.e. the irrelevantly hypothetical types -- which are untestable.
Once more for the cheap seats:
I HAVEN'T GIVEN A DEFINITION OF CREATOR.
KoM asserted that the existence of a creator as the cause of the big bang is testable. I await the description of the experiment to test it.
I don't really care about KoM's diversion of this into a study of prayer. I returned out of courtesy at his request. I've repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly made it clear what part I'm interested in. So far I've heard excuses why the requested experiment can't be described yet. I don't actually care if it ever is described - as I've said, I don't think it can be. But that's what it will take to convince me that the existence of a creator is the proper subject of science.
I don't buy your foundational contention that an untestable creator is irrelerevant. Every single thing you say that relies on that as a premise is irrelevant to me. And not one of you has given a single real reason why an untestable creator is irrelevant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Whiner.
Boothby tactic 101: ignore what's actually said. It's too hard to respond to. Make some sh&% up and respond to that instead.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
...but I suppose I can't be certain since I don't have a clue about your conception of the divine or what, if any, religion you follow. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
