Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

[PaulSacramento]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

[Kenny]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

Intelligence doesn’t have an actual existence by itself, is just a description of something that exists by itself. Like blue, or beautiful; sorta like asking where are they and where did they come from.

[PaulSacramento]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

Intelligence doesn’t have an actual existence by itself, is just a description of something that exists by itself. Like blue, or beautiful; sorta like asking where are they and where did they come from.

Like the essence of a triangle is "triangularity" ( having three sides) right?
Even if there were no triangles in existence, somehow, "triangularity" would still exist, right?

[Kenny]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

Intelligence doesn’t have an actual existence by itself, is just a description of something that exists by itself. Like blue, or beautiful; sorta like asking where are they and where did they come from.

Like the essence of a triangle is "triangularity" ( having three sides) right?
Even if there were no triangles in existence, somehow, "triangularity" would still exist, right?

Is "triangularity" even a word? However; if nothing had the shape of a triangle, the word "triangle, (or even triangularity) wouldn't even exist.

[Philip]

Intelligence cannot / does not exist outside of a being that has it and can use it!

[PaulSacramento]

Intelligence cannot / does not exist outside of a being that has it and can use it!

Sure, specific intelligence is dependent on the specific thing/person.
Like a specific triangle is dependent on the existence of the specific triangle, BUT not triangularity, which is NOT dependent on the existence of any particular triangle.
Agreed?

[Philip]

Triangularity is a descriptive used to refer to anything that meets the characteristics of it's definition - a definition created by intelligent beings to describe any such observed three-sided arrangement. However, no, we don't have to know or see a thing with such characteristics for those characteristics to exist in a thing - or even for the thing itself to exist. As the triangular thing either exists or it does not; it either has those characteristics or not - regardless of what we do or don't know about it. Is that redundant enough?

[Morny]

[...] if a claim is extraordinary (whatever that means and however arbitrary the definition), [...]

Didn't my multiple examples of "extraordinary" and "ordinary" help you?

My experience has been the exact opposite, no matter how complex the problem is, more often than not the explanation is not complex at all, it is usually the simplest and most intuitive.

You still misunderstand my point. The complexity of problems or explanations is irrelevant to my point, which is how well does the evidence support the explanation, not how simple the explanation is.

It's that science, by its very nature and its very claims, is the wrong tool to use for testing God's existence.

When someone makes testable claims of the supernatural, e.g., the efficacy of prayer, science is an effective tool.

I can assure you that if science found support for a supernatural claim, every scientist on Earth would stop what they're doing to investigate.

You want to test the immaterial then you have to take a step (or several) back into metaphysics.

I hear the sound of goal posts moving to avoid annoyingly effective scientific testing.

That's where rationality and the rules of logic make the immaterial not only testable but provable.

Rationality and logic are part of the scientific method. Give an example of your testable immaterial claim that science has overlooked. What is the evidence supporting that claim?

[Philip]

Byblos: You want to test the immaterial then you have to take a step (or several) back into metaphysics.

Morny: I hear the sound of goal posts moving to avoid annoyingly effective scientific testing.

NO! The scientific method cannot test for anything beyond the physical world of observable things it is capable of assessing. While it can point to probabilities of designs, functionalities and the required materials, conditions, etc. existing without an intelligent cause, if the Cause isn't physical, it cannot test for the metaphysical realm! How many times has this forum seen people come and try to deny God and the spiritual realm per the scientific method - can't be done / its tools are incapable of detecting it. What can be done is discern the IMPACT of the metaphysical realm - but then many will argue such impact is merely due to something else - or something we just don't yet understand.

[Byblos]

[...] if a claim is extraordinary (whatever that means and however arbitrary the definition), [...]

Didn't my multiple examples of "extraordinary" and "ordinary" help you?

My experience has been the exact opposite, no matter how complex the problem is, more often than not the explanation is not complex at all, it is usually the simplest and most intuitive.

You still misunderstand my point. The complexity of problems or explanations is irrelevant to my point, which is how well does the evidence support the explanation, not how simple the explanation is.

It's that science, by its very nature and its very claims, is the wrong tool to use for testing God's existence.

When someone makes testable claims of the supernatural, e.g., the efficacy of prayer, science is an effective tool.

I can assure you that if science found support for a supernatural claim, every scientist on Earth would stop what they're doing to investigate.

You want to test the immaterial then you have to take a step (or several) back into metaphysics.

I hear the sound of goal posts moving to avoid annoyingly effective scientific testing.

That's where rationality and the rules of logic make the immaterial not only testable but provable.

Rationality and logic are part of the scientific method. Give an example of your testable immaterial claim that science has overlooked. What is the evidence supporting that claim?

Lol morny, Just like you, I value science a great deal (after all, I am a scientist). Unlike you, however, I know well the limitations and boundaries of science as a tool. If I wanted to hammer a nail in, I'd avoid using a block of Swiss cheese. It just wouldn't work.

And you're absolutely right that logic and rationality are part of the scientific method and the reason for that is the a priori assumptions that are most fundamental for any scientific endeavor, i.e. the law of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason (that reality itself is intelligible). Those are not scientific principles morny, they are assumed by it. So what do you think they are?

[PaulSacramento]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

Intelligence doesn’t have an actual existence by itself, is just a description of something that exists by itself. Like blue, or beautiful; sorta like asking where are they and where did they come from.

Like the essence of a triangle is "triangularity" ( having three sides) right?
Even if there were no triangles in existence, somehow, "triangularity" would still exist, right?

Is "triangularity" even a word? However; if nothing had the shape of a triangle, the word "triangle, (or even triangularity) wouldn't even exist.

Really?
If all we had was 5 things then the number 6 wouldn't exist ??
Dude...
If there was no intelligent being then intelligence wouldn't exist?
So, if it is NOT material, which we agreed BUT it is dependent on something existing that is intelligent, what is intelligence?
Since material can only come from material ,does the immaterial even exist? of course it does because even you admit that consciousness, intelligence are NOT material BUT they DO exist.

[Kenny]

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world

.
I appreciate your honesty.
I have seen way to many materialists try some fascinating mental gymnastics around the simple fact that those things are not material by any definition.

We know that intelligence is not part of the material world, so the question to be asked is WHERE is it and WHERE did it come from?

Intelligence doesn’t have an actual existence by itself, is just a description of something that exists by itself. Like blue, or beautiful; sorta like asking where are they and where did they come from.

Like the essence of a triangle is "triangularity" ( having three sides) right?
Even if there were no triangles in existence, somehow, "triangularity" would still exist, right?

Is "triangularity" even a word? However; if nothing had the shape of a triangle, the word "triangle, (or even triangularity) wouldn't even exist.

Really?
If all we had was 5 things then the number 6 wouldn't exist ??
Dude...
If there was no intelligent being then intelligence wouldn't exist?

More like; if nothing was intelligent, the word intelligent wouldn’t exist.

So, if it is NOT material, which we agreed BUT it is dependent on something existing that is intelligent, what is intelligence?

Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge.

Since material can only come from material ,does the immaterial even exist? of course it does because even you admit that consciousness, intelligence are NOT material BUT they DO exist.

Intelligence and consciousness are human abilities.

[Byblos]

Since material can only come from material ,does the immaterial even exist? of course it does because even you admit that consciousness, intelligence are NOT material BUT they DO exist.

Intelligence and consciousness are human abilities.

Annnnnnd we're back to square one.

[Kenny]

Since material can only come from material ,does the immaterial even exist? of course it does because even you admit that consciousness, intelligence are NOT material BUT they DO exist.

Intelligence and consciousness are human abilities.

Annnnnnd we're back to square one.

I don't know what type of answer you are looking for. When you say does "X" exist; what do you mean by exist? Thoughts exist, ideas exist, heck even Santa Clause exist; but only in our imaginations; but are they real? No; they are just make-believe until we do something to make them real.

[Morny]

The scientific method cannot test for anything beyond the physical world of observable things it is capable of assessing.

Correct! What makes you think I disagree?

How many times has this forum seen people come and try to deny God and the spiritual realm per the scientific method - can't be done / its tools are incapable of detecting it.

I've taken great pains, but evidently still not enough, to restrict my assertions to those in which people claim measurable natural effects based on their supernatural beliefs. For example, in controlled, randomized, double-blind studies, do prayed for patients improve better than those not prayed for?

Ad nauseam discussions about non-measurable claims, I consider a complete waste of time - I think I used the term "boring". For example, "no more than 100 angels can dance on the head of a pin," or "God cares about us." Thousands of years of discussion about such topics have resolved nothing.

And I have the same issue with paranormalists claiming measurable natural effects, e.g., remote viewing, water dowsing, psychokinesis.