Evidence for God from Science

I don't think it's so much an appeal to anger but more the anger that many people see coming from atheists can in some way be attributed to something akin to the breakdown of a relationship. Sound or not I believe emotions are the basis for much of our behaviour.

Robust intelectual discussion of rational and reasonable intuition is as much a waste of time as religion is to many people. On the other hand people with a love of rational and reasonable intellectual debate often strongly disagree too.

Proinsias wrote: Many conversions to atheism I've witnessed have been cathartic processes, there's an initial outburst of hatred or mocking of Christianity which tends to settle down after a bit. If someone has devoted much of their life's energies to something that they begin to see as a lie, anger is likely to follow. From the way I've seen people react it's like finding out many years of marriage or friendship were built on a lies - it brings forth resentment, hurt, anger and hatred.

This makes a lot of sense.

FL

Proinsias wrote:I don't think it's so much an appeal to anger but more the anger that many people see coming from atheists can in some way be attributed to something akin to the breakdown of a relationship. Sound or not I believe emotions are the basis for much of our behaviour.

Robust intelectual discussion of rational and reasonable intuition is as much a waste of time as religion is to many people. On the other hand people with a love of rational and reasonable intellectual debate often strongly disagree too.

Again, I would concur with you. However, emotions are learned. Much like how we have developed a false sense of security.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have emotions. I'm saying, if we're going to use our emotions for reasoning than we should ask why would it be right? Any reason we come up with is arbitrary and ultimately special pleading.
Would you believe me if I told you that our special pleading is answered by God? Would you believe that God has responded with emotional statements and actions (just like us humans)? Would you believe me in saying that God has allowed us time and space to respond to him? Not by force, but by choice.

It just makes too much sense, and unfortunately it is like you said where people don't want to make sense of anything regardless of how its presented to them (Reason or Emotion). Looks to me that they are more interested in telling everyone else that their arbitrary reasoning is righteous. Its this thing called Arrogant pride, and I would say its contrary to the definition of being righteous.

I think ultimately many do not feel the need to ground their religion or distaste for it in terms of mainly logic and rationality. Those that do feel the need to ground their religion, or lack of it, in logic and rationality to whatever level they see fitting will still encounter those of a similar level of understanding or experience who disagree.

Domokunrox wrote:I'm not saying we shouldn't have emotions.

I'm with you on this one

Domokunrox wrote:I'm saying, if we're going to use our emotions for reasoning than we should ask why would it be right? Any reason we come up with is arbitrary and ultimately special pleading.

This is hurting my head. It's a big question, is it right to let emotion trump, or heavily influence, reason? Love/Hate is where the problem or solution lies, I think, it trumps reason all the time, often comes with lots of special pleading, often defies logic or common sense and seemingly strikes arbitrarily, or not......

Proinsias wrote:I think ultimately many do not feel the need to ground their religion or distaste for it in terms of mainly logic and rationality. Those that do feel the need to ground their religion, or lack of it, in logic and rationality to whatever level they see fitting will still encounter those of a similar level of understanding or experience who disagree.

I disagree. With internet that is so accessible and its becoming such a big part of our daily way of life, getting misinformation out there on the internet is easier than website scams. It is as unavoidable as a malicious rumor in a playground full of 8 year olds.

Proinsias wrote:This is hurting my head. It's a big question, is it right to let emotion trump, or heavily influence, reason? Love/Hate is where the problem or solution lies, I think, it trumps reason all the time, often comes with lots of special pleading, often defies logic or common sense and seemingly strikes arbitrarily, or not......

Heres the problem. The second you believe that love/hate/emotions exists or is understood and applicable to reality, you might as well believe God exists.
If you believe Math exists, might as well believe God does as well
If you believe there such a thing as gravity, might as well believe in God as well

One's man's misinformation is another man's information. Playground rumours is a rather nice summation of human speculations on origins, purpose & future.

Not really convinced that one who believes in gravity or love might as well believe in God. Sounds like the logic of "if you're staying for another drink you might as well say up all night drinking". The idea of a gravity or love being a thing seems a bit odd. It's like The Darkness vs. Foreigner

Proinsias wrote:One's man's misinformation is another man's information. Playground rumours is a rather nice summation of human speculations on origins, purpose & future.

Quite false. Misinformation, by definition and as it is understood, is to deceive. The other man would not have information. He would have deception. Also, to your second statement, its trite with pragmatism that contradicts itself. Is your second statement objectively true? Or is one of those speculations as well?
If its the former, why should make your statement an exception? Why the inconsistency?
If its the latter, you've got your work cut out for you in order to hold your statement up.

Not really convinced that one who believes in gravity or love might as well believe in God. Sounds like the logic of "if you're staying for another drink you might as well say up all night drinking". The idea of a gravity or love being a thing seems a bit odd. It's like The Darkness vs. Foreigner

Really? Not convinced? Let me ask you something then. Does love or gravity take up space (spatial extension)? If so, please explain. If not, you've got a big problem there.

Disinformation is to deceive, misinformation is just erroneous information. I said one man's misinformation is another's information, I stand by it.

I have no idea if my statement above is objectively true. On plain sight it appears to be true as what one man considers information another, such as yourself, would consider misinformation.

Really? Not convinced? Let me ask you something then. Does love or gravity take up space (spatial extension)? If so, please explain. If not, you've got a big problem there.

Love and gravity, in my experience, require space.

You are completely misunderstanding. Anything that isn't information is a falsehood. It matters not a single bit if the agent behind the falsehood has done so intentionally or not.

You say one man's information is another's misinformation as if their perspective matters. It doesn't. You've assumed that relativism is axiomatic, which is logically inconsistent and self defeating. Simply stating that you stand by an inconsistent and self defeating philosophy doesn't work.
Your statement on information and misinformation is like saying 2=3. By definition and as it is understood, those ideas DO NOT relate.

The kicker to the whole thing is that you say you don't know if your statement is objectively true at all.
Saying "I don't know" is NOT a statement of truth or knowledge. That's arguing from ignorance.

You say that love or gravity requires space. That doesn't make sense. I said does it TAKE UP SPACE?
Does it take up space in the same sense as matter? Like a rock for example.

Hi Dom,

I think there is a distinction to be made between misinformation and disinformation, and I see both as types of information. In fact I'm struggling to think of anything that couldn't be described in terms of information. I think intentions and perspective do matter.

Again I'm not claiming objective truth in my statements. Saying I don't know is the most honest answer I can give. Your position in which perspective & intentions matter not one single bit and truth should be prefixed with objective to be of relevance is perplexing to me.

You say that love or gravity requires space. That doesn't make sense. I said does it TAKE UP SPACE?
Does it take up space in the same sense as matter? Like a rock for example.

I really don't know. From what I gather it's a problem that has had physicists scratching their heads for some time, how we can relate gravity to the rest of physics. Gravity is an idea which we've not yet managed to unite in a consistent model. It went from being the force that ran the universe like clockwork to being the odd one out. If gravity does not take up space in the same sense as matter, does it take up space in any sense? I don't know, do you?

Simply stating that you stand by an inconsistent and self defeating philosophy doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean. In what way does it "not work"?. In my experience the best workers are those with little interest in philosophy. I've been looking into different religions for 15 or so years, philosophy more recently. Whilst I've come across lots of wonderful ideas, find much of it fascinating and been heavily influenced by some things I can't claim to have an overriding theory that ties everything neatly into place. It's more of a work in progress than a "does not work".

Listen, I know what misinformation and disinformation is. What you seem to not be getting is that BY DEFINITION and IN UNDERSTANDING they are FALSE.

Again, I have stated that you've assumed WITH NO JUSTIFICATION that relativism is axiomatic.
Are you implying that our individual perspectives are infallible? Is there anything at all to support your statement?

Saying that you don't know is indeed the most honest answer you have, but again, that is arguing from ignorance. It's a fallacy.

You say that my position is "perplexing" to you with absolutely no further explanation. Do you detect falsehood in an absolute and objective philosophy that I am saying is ABSOLUTELY true? You MUST allegedly KNOW TRUTH in order to detect falsehood. As I have stated many times before.... Truth denying is truth affirming.
So we're left with only 2 possible scenarios here.
1. You are begging the question
2. You are arguing from ignorance
Or maybe door number 3 actually exists?
3. You have justification for relativism being true and applicable to reality.

In regards to the discussion on the existence of love and gravity, it seems that you've lost your way in the discussion.
You see, the thing is that you are rational enough to believe in the existence of such things and when asked to explain how they are applicable to reality, you bring absolutely nothing. You've asking me to provide the right answer for you. My philosophy allows me to acknowledge the existence and applicability of these things to reality.
And again, and my challenge to you was, does your philosophy reach the same RATIONAL and REAL conclusion as mine does? How about for the atheist? Does their assumed materialism come to the same conclusion?

Again, my statement on those matters is that believing in such things being applicable to reality is no different then believing in the existence of God and the application of God to reality.

I'm not sure what you mean. In what way does it "not work"?. In my experience the best workers are those with little interest in philosophy. I've been looking into different religions for 15 or so years, philosophy more recently. Whilst I've come across lots of wonderful ideas, find much of it fascinating and been heavily influenced by some things I can't claim to have an overriding theory that ties everything neatly into place. It's more of a work in progress than a "does not work".

Why does it not work? Its very easy to demonstrate this.

You have this philosophical truth theory of Relativism/Pluralism that you have assumed is axiomatic. When I simply question its truth value IN PRACTICE, it fails to meet its own standard.
Its like saying "Relativism/Pluralism is (absolutely) true, except whenever it talks about itself". Its begging the question when you hold such a position. It assumes that absolutes are false (except for itself, of course) WITH NO JUSTIFICATION.
Again, its either
Begging the question
Argument from ignorance

Again, I have to ask why do you believe that the truth of an absolute philosophy is false?