Quantum entanglement as I understand it has been experimentally proven - and Quantum Mechanics - works for lack of a better word. Where I think physics is now is General Relativity works ( again for lack of a better word ) for big stuff, and QA works for sub atomic stuff - but there has not been a bridge built between the two that unifies them - some unified theory of the universe.

On another thread i opined that ( with no evidence at all ) Entanglement could be looked at as the top most slice of the space -time plane we are aware off - there being many other space time planes that we are not aware of.

The philosophic implication of such a world is all problems then become metaphysical - since all physical constants are only valid in the space time plane we are aware of.

Dr. Hud Hudson makes this point to show that if it is only possible that block time exists, it is now possible that literal bible interpretations such as creation, or Adam and eve - are possible events in some other space time plane - and as such can not be dismissed on scientific claims - and must be addressed metaphysically.

It is certainly possible that we hold our current scientific understandings in a much higher regard than they well deserve - just like every other generation before us held theirs. It seems as we reach each new step on the science ladder - we look down at all those other ideas and feel our current level of knowledge is so superior - ignoring the fact that as a race we felt that exact same way on every other rung.

thanks was not correcting that minor error, why would it make God irrelevant

Also yes it the hypretime theory is true God is irelivent — hachit

Sorry my ignorance, why is that self evident? Can you explain?

So you mean you base your belief in this (provided this is indeed the god of you belief... you haven't really said that outright and all I an say is it seems to be the case) god of the Christian bible upon faith and not empirical a posteriori reasoning?

If so, fair enough. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, my belief in the Christian God of the Bible is based on faith

To tell the truth I have never bothered with atheist arguments. I've never quite understood the point of it.

If I wish to argue the existence of a new species I believe does exist, the proper method would be to argue that the species exists rather than argue why the yet to be confirmed species does not exist.

It seems to me that to argue in favor of a position that is founded only in the rejection of another assertion of belief is a bit odd. Why wouldn't one simply ask for evidence to prove the existence of something claimed to exist instead?

Wouldn't it make more sense to strenghten the argument for the existence of god; thus moving on to prove this point to be sound?

To simply find fault in the criticism against the argument for existence only illustrates/exposes that a particular criticism against the argument for the existence is executed poorly done or is weak. Illustrating/exposing poorly done logic or weakness in a criticism against a point does not prove the initial point of the argument. It only illustrates/exposes weakness in the criticism.

Indeed I find errors and weakness in some points of criticism regarding god existing, but these errors and weaknesses do nothing to prove the notion that god exists.

It seems unless we are wishing to refine the criticism against the existence of god there is really no point in this folly.

Meow!

G — Mayor of Simpleton

This is all fair and I have no issue with that. My only caveat would be if one is not withholding judgment do to a belief the proposition is not supported, but still possible. That is a very different thing than making a judgment the thing does not exist because of lack of evidence. The later is an active judgment to a proposition. If one wishes to challenge that proposition as false, one should be willing to justify that position. If the only objection is, you have not convinced me, it is a rather short and fruitless discussion.

Let me put what I find an interesting discussion in a more formal structure.

I believe by faith that God of the Bible is true, true being a personal belief that one tries to act in accordance with.
I believe it is not a matter of fact that God is, or God is not
I believe there are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of God
I believe none of these arguments completely overwhelm the others

Therefore I concluded my belief by faith is not in conflict with fact or reason, and a such should be respected as a valid belief.

Happy to discuss reasoned arguments that either my propositions are false, or my conclusion does not follow.

I am interested in discussing the existence of god. — Mayor of Simpleton

Understand, happy to play the theist foil if you wish. A few caveats. I have no reason based argument for “god” of the Christian bible.

And I have nothing new to add the CA.

Also happy to argue against the atheist arguments I noted above, but that is also a well worn path

Still find it more useful to challenge the atheist to argue my theism is unreasonable. More interested in establishing respect for theism as a reasoned possibility from the atheist than a debate to an unanswerable question.

Is theism (an ideology) the same as the existence of god (an ideal)?

If one has an ideal, does that mean one must have an ideology formed around that ideal or could one simply have an ideal that does not result in an ideology?

Basically is an ideal and ideology the same thing? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not sure how we could separate them for the purpose of our discussion. Don't see much difference between what you believe to exist, does or does not exist, and it exists or not. If that is what you are asking.

If anyone cares to discuss the question does god exist without taking things personally or making attacks of person, using tu quoque or employing constant psychological deflection, I'd find this to be an interesting topic. — Mayor of Simpleton

I am not sure what is left to be said on the subject.

I am aware of only 3 basic arguments against theism.

1. No seeum arguments - basically we have looked around and we don't see God, or any convincing evidence of God, therefore God does not exist.

2. The argument from evil - A God who is the 3 O's can not permit evil, evil exists therefore God does not

3. All the 3O paradoxes ( almost left these out - not sure they meet the standard of argument)

All are reasonable arguments and all have equally reasonable challenges.

I am not aware of 1 reasonable argument for a 3 O God.

But there are good arguments for a necessary being or uncreated creator.

These are reasonable, and also have reasonable objections.

I see little purpose to re hash these arguments with others who are aware of them. They are important arguments that those who are unaware should understand.

What I do think is a more important discussion is, is theism a reasonable belief? I know of no argument that ends in a conclusion that theism is unreasonable. If one could make a good argument that theism is outside reason, then theists like me would have to abandon our belief or be fools.

In the interim, until such an argument exists- then my hope is that both theist and atheist would respect each other's position as reasonable, and currently un resolvable.

I think nothing bad about you at all. I have absolutely no idea at all what winning an argument on here means, it is certainly no objective of mine.

My judgement is that there is nothing you can say to me on this topic that will be of any value to me. And likewise it is my judgment there is nothing I can say on this topic that you will value. I may be mistaken in my judgment, it has happened before, but if neither of us will gain anything, what is the point.

I was just reading about salesmen and them being a good example of people with credibility issues. However, Hitchens seems genuine and the book seems well-researched. — TheMadFool

No worries, my view of hitchens is just an opinion. If it makes it any better feel the same way about most evangelical tv preachers.

I still think I get to decide who, and for how long I engage with. Please feel free not to engage me if that is unacceptable to you. Again it is not a slight in any way, just have no interest in prolonged idea tennis where we both lob back and forth and at the end we will be in exactly the same place. Seems a waste of time to me.

don't see this going anywhere productive. Not being dismissive, and mean no slight whatsoever- but just see the start of a do loop that will not benefit either of us.

I have never made a case that faith can be in conflict with fact or reason. That is not faith, that is a fool.

Party B is wrong. You can't know anything by faith. Faith is a means of achieving peace of mind, not a means of obtaining knowledge. If you want truth, you have to search for it. — S

John 18:38 - Seems to me not to be a point, a singularly- but an almost limitless idea requiring a personal definition. Quite akin to faith actually.

If what you mean by truth is fact. Than I agree faith has little to add in the findings of fact.

Religious apologists, as far as I can see, can't deny his findings. All they can do at this point is to defend themselves obliquely. If Hitchens says ''the Bible is not authentic'' they will have to reply by saying something like ''the Bible isn't to be read literally'' since Hitchens is right and so can't be refuted. — TheMadFool

Hitchen's only real issue with the Bible, is those of us who believe it is revelation. And every issue he uses to attack the Bible, could also be said of homer, yet he does not attack the Iliad.

Here is what it comes down to. It is not a fact that God is or God is not. It is reasonable to believe that God is, and it is reasonable to believe God is not. For good salesmen, both theist and atheist, there is good money to be made in pitting these reasonable beliefs against each other.

Those who value reason and philosophy should be able to recognize and respect the counter position, argue with passion but without a acrimony. Listen and understand the other position and be willing to change our position if reason so dictates. I find this rare.

.becuase it has none of the traits that we use to determine what is true a — DingoJones

Depends how one defines true. How I would define it is a belief that underscores what one does. One acts in accordance with what one believes to be true. Often these actions require a choice between competing reasonable alternatives.

As we go through the green light in our car, we have faith that other drivers will stop at the red. It is not a matter of fact they will stop, it is reasonable to believe they will stop, it is reasonable to believe many will not. Going through the light is an act of faith.

because .....

meant my comment was opinion and bad philosophy not his book

Just an aside -

Also it is instructive to note that according to Catholic doctrine, faith is unnecessary. The truth may be achieved through reason. — Inis

I am pretty catholic and I don't think that is actuate. Faith plays an immense roll in Catholicism, what the church does say, is there is no conflict between faith and reason. To me Thomas Merton said it best

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

in any discussion on knowing, the first issue is some understanding of what the other party's understanding is, and what their basis is for saying what they know. I think that is the major issue in these discussions. Party A stands on a foundation that one can only know things by either fact or reason. Party B believes that one can know something by fact, reason, or faith. And while they argue about knowing, what they are really arguing about is can one know anything by faith.

So, assuming for the sake of this argument we can trust our senses, that we believe in time and space, in short, we avoid the drunken dorm room philosophy for now.

If what one is discussing has a factual answer. 2+2 =4, than the one taking the I don't know position is either ignorant or a fool

If what one is discussing has an overwhelming more reasonable answer than any other. Unicorns as defined as flying horses with a horn on their forehead do not exist on planet earth. We know something about horses, we know something about flying and we know about horns, and we know about the finite place where we say they do not exist. We can say based on reason alone that we have looked in a lot of places for a long time and no one has seen a unicorn. There for I say I know there are no unicorns. There may well be unicorns in some deep jungle, but based on overwhelming reasonable evidence I can say I know unicorns do not exist and act accordingly. The one who understands the argument and continues with I don't know solely based on it is not a fact. Is to limited to have any meaningful discussion with.

What if there are competing reasonable ideas, neither overwhelms the other. Theism, atheism for example. The option to pick A, B, or I don't know is based on a personal judgment on the importance of the question, and ones opinion on the consequences of the answer. Think of Samuel Jackson in pulp fiction, "go ahead say what one more time". If one feel compelled to answer, than the issue is not the "I don't know" it is the "why are you compelled" that is the base of the disagreement. If one feels the question requires an answer, one is free to chose based on faith between those competing ideas, and say they know, and act accordingly.

I feel what really is the issue is not "I don't know ". It is often I don't think you can say you know anything based on faith.

It is the heart of many of these discussions, does faith exist, and if so, does it have any value, can it lead in any way to "knowing "

By some definition, communism, Presbyterian, Muslim, Tao, catholic, satanism, etc, etc, etc. are all religions. I am not sure there is a human being on the planet who is not a follower of some religion broadly defined. Perhaps we should narrow in what we mean by religion before condemning it as the root of all evil.

Christopher Hitchens. — TheMadFool

Is to philosophical discussions of theism, what Donald trump is to productive discussions on governance. Both are entertainers and salesmen.

That is also pure opinion and very bad philosophy by the way.

I'm not really into winning arguments (seriously what the hell is the prize anyway?), but rather collecting information from other perspective more in the hope to refine the questions being asked to become better questions. — Mayor of Simpleton

same - have a good day

I some cases the belief one has in the existence of a god is hasty. I could really say the very same for the rejection of the belief in god. — Mayor of Simpleton

agree

I have many friends who are proper theologians. Indeed I do not reach the same conclusion as they do, but I cannot say that their investigations have been without thought or of a hasty nature. We have quality dialogs over many topics including existence of god and in spite of me rejecting their arguments, I can certainly respect them for their investigations. — Mayor of Simpleton

Agree - with the caveat - One has no need to be a proper theologian to have made a considered decision to be theistic.

In addition to this I find that the vast majority of folks either don't make or more likely do have the time to go into such a critical analysis. In short they simply have other things to do.

To be fair to them critical debate over the existence of god is not really a common topic in everyday life. — Mayor of Simpleton

agree - but not relevant to our discussion - same could be said of thousands of other issues many happily ignorant of.

I encounter quite a few "atheists" who are really going through a process of being angered with religion or religious folks. This seems rather odd to me, as if one rejects the existence of god then one is an atheist, but simply rejecting religion makes one irreligious. It's as if they never addressed the issue of god existing and simply threw the baby out with the bath water. — Mayor of Simpleton

agree - and with no basis at all I would add many's atheism is not much deeper than " smart people are atheists, I'm smart - so I'm and atheist too"

Can one be thoughtful and avoid a hasty generalized view and be theistic?

Certainly.

Do I believe every argument that is thoughtful and avoids hasty generalizations?

No. — Mayor of Simpleton

agree - thanks think we have an understanding

If one concludes that god does exist, — Mayor of Simpleton

I have no issue at all with all you posted. and agree for the most part.

However my main concern in both your posts is this. They leave me feeling as you believe that the theist conclusion is either "hasty" or not as thoughtfully investigated as buying a new car. Before I charge into attack on that position - all I have been trying to establish is, is that what your position actually is ?

We suffer from a conflict of style - i attempt to be succinct and as direct as I can be - you seem the opposite - I am not saying one is right and one is wrong - but i feel it is hampering my understanding of what your position is.

no worries - I read your point, in light of the topic and discussion as a dismissal of theist arguments as fallacious due to them being " hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence." Not wanting to make a "hasty generalization" is why I asked you about your opinion of those specific arguments.

I find this response -

I find other flaws in the first two arguments mentioned. I haven't really bother to check them for hasty generalizations, as the other things caught my eye; thus why pile on? — Mayor of Simpleton

decidedly unsatisfying - I have no issue with all of the sited arguments having flaws, or maybe better said - valid arguments against ( as I noted in my aside) - that however would seem a second step. If such argument were patently fallacious simply due to lack of vigor - why would anyone bother with looking for flaws or counter arguments. You position on this seem to support your point.

On a side note, if one reaches a conclusion the tendency for further critical investigation slows, if not stops outright. — Mayor of Simpleton

If I am missing your point, or if i am suffering from some hyper sensitivity to anti theist posts and read something into this point that was not intended - mea culpa.

Always look forward to your thoughtful replies.

I don't see either as a progression in the sense of improvement. — Terrapin Station

can you expand some on that thought -

Well, the easy thing to demonstrate is that a lot of these influential folks haven't thought through things very well. A ton of well-respected stuff is basically crap in my view. — Terrapin Station

Would you see this as a progression of thought ? Similar to the progression of science? Would your logic be the same for Copernicus as it is for Aquinas ?

As for religion and society, moral evils have been committed within religious societies, and moral goods have been too. Our evils are committed by us, not by “religion”, as are our goods. Perhaps you can point us to a society that isn’t guided by beliefs, where we do neither? — AJJ

Even as a rather serious Catholic, it is important to remember that religion is a human undertaking with all the frailties that that entails. Religion is not "God", and "God " is not religion.

A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications. — Mayor of Simpleton

would you consider the fine tuning argument for God to fit into this category ??
would you consider the cosmological argument for an necessary being to fit into this category?
would you consider the existence of a singularity of infinite mass in zero space/time in this category?

Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient"

As an aside - I think fine tuning argument fails - due to skeptical theism

and once again - never mind. Now you can make your post declaring some type of victory over me, and await the next fish - you can snare into one of these useless arguments.

Why on earth should I refrain from those discussions? — S

because - if as you stated before:

I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist or even that I believe that God doesn't exist, — S

what are you adding to the discussion beyond:

I'm challenging the claims of theism as unjustified — S

which is exactly my point of:

Mr. Theist sir, you have not proved you point to my satisfaction, — Rank Amateur

what value does that add ? You are just standing on the sidelines yelling you guys are wrong, and i don't have to tell you why. Better to just stay on the sidelines, and think as you wish until you are willing to defend the position.

So here goes, I propose theism is a rational position. And I welcome any argument you can make with supportable propositions that ends in a conclusion that says " therefore theism is unreasonable"

preferably without the acrimony, but that maybe too much to ask.

No, it's not an example of that fallacy. It's not fallacious, whatever the topic, to justify an absence of belief because of an absence of sufficient evidence in support of it. I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist or even that I believe that God doesn't exist, which would be the kind of claims which would be susceptible to the fallacy. — S

I think that is absolutely fine, except someone with that position should refrain from the discussion between atheist and theist. If the only thing one could add was I don't know enough to have a position - than one should logically remain on the sidelines. If one wants to challenge the theist position as false, one should have a basis for that challenge. If the only challenge is - Mr. Theist sir, you have not proved you point to my satisfaction, than argument stops there.

Camus' absurdity is man's desire to find meaning, where there is none. Why would man seem to have this need, and there being none. This presents a dilemma- why live, often with all the hardships of life, without meaning. Which is the basis of his very famous opening question in the myth of Sisyphus, which was never, at least in my opinion, meant to be literal.

Camus believed those who chose to not directly face and accept this absurdity where making a leap of faith, abandoning reason and truth, and committing a type of philosophical suicide. These included a type of superficial hedonism, existentialism, and theism.

His answer was the absurd hero, who did not avoid the dilemma, but understood it, challenged it, and in the end accepted it.

thanks - have a good day.

that was a much more thoughtful dodge. Only you can know if that works for you. I truly hope it does.

We were in discussion on the thoughtfulness behind people's decision for or against theism.

I do not think one can be an honest or authentic atheist if one can not answer the question of if not "God" what is the meaning and purpose of my life. That is what Camus was asking. And that is all I was asking S, what is his meaning and purpose for living, not THE meaning. If one is a thoughtful person, one should have an individual answer for that question, at least IMO.

I was looking for an honest answer to a serious question, and got a dodge. I have no interest in a debate, I did have interest in what S found gave his life meaning. There is no right answer. Camus would have called my theism a form of philosophical suicide. An easy out to avoid a difficult question. He maybe right, but it works for me.

Never mind - I have my answer

tactic is no substitute for an honest exchange of ideas in search of truth.

Camus question was not loaded, it was fundamental, and he had an answer that worked for him. I disagree with his answer, but it was thoughtful and honest. I like to think he would say the same about mine.

interested then - answer philosophically not literally please to Camus question -

start of myth of sisyphus

"HERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.

These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect.

If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the
actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did

That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die
because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or
illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason
for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. How to answer it? "