Evidence for God from Science

I highly recommend these videos, especially the first three. They're an excellent overview of philosophy, how to do it, how to think about it, etc. I'm really impressed by these. Here's the link to the playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkY ... NkMybYIHKR

And here's the first three videos:





Again, highly recommend. Good stuff for what it is.

A quick application relevant to the discussions that happen here when people want to argue that something can come from nothing (even when they don't confuse material causality and efficient causality so that they are actually arguing that nothing can efficiently cause something to exist)--here's a little puzzle for the fourth video:

• No cat has two tails
  Every cat has one more tail than no cat
  Therefore, every cat has three tails

It shouldn't take much reflection to see that we have an equivocation fallacy around the idea of nothing or "no cat." I trust you can see the solution and why it's relevant to the claims sometimes made here. If not, watch the fourth video.

You know that deductive reasoning is not really a strong suit of people that have made up their mind on a given position, right?
Confirmation bias is huge in the world we live in.

Agreed. That's one of the reasons it'd be better if people could learn a little bit of philosophy and critical thinking. If I may use a geeky analogy to discuss an already geeky subject, it's like studying chess. Sure, you can improve you game by playing over and over and over again and learning from your own mistakes. Or you can study the games and positions of others. Look at what they did, why the did it, the variations they were calculating in each position, and so on. Then when you encounter something similar, which should be often, actually, since you'll be playing common openings and common positions, then you'll have some idea of how to approach the problem. Same with philosophy. When you know the "rules" of thinking (proper critical thinking skills, understanding of how logic works, etc), you can then look at the way others have approached the big questions. It really helps you frame your own thoughts and see all the variations, implications, and even how those thoughts you are having relate to thoughts you don't agree with.

Jac3510 wrote:Agreed. That's one of the reasons it'd be better if people could learn a little bit of philosophy and critical thinking. If I may use a geeky analogy to discuss an already geeky subject, it's like studying chess. Sure, you can improve you game by playing over and over and over again and learning from your own mistakes. Or you can study the games and positions of others. Look at what they did, why the did it, the variations they were calculating in each position, and so on. Then when you encounter something similar, which should be often, actually, since you'll be playing common openings and common positions, then you'll have some idea of how to approach the problem. Same with philosophy. When you know the "rules" of thinking (proper critical thinking skills, understanding of how logic works, etc), you can then look at the way others have approached the big questions. It really helps you frame your own thoughts and see all the variations, implications, and even how those thoughts you are having relate to thoughts you don't agree with.

In regards to critical thinking:
I find it very interesting that so many skeptics profess to adhere to it and yet, don't apply it to their own views.
At least not to the natural conclusion of their views.

Sexy stuff, Jac!

I bet when Jac's wife wants to get him turned on - she starts talking philosophy to him! Jac: "Oh, YEAH, baby!!!"

PaulSacramento wrote:In regards to critical thinking:
I find it very interesting that so many skeptics profess to adhere to it and yet, don't apply it to their own views.
At least not to the natural conclusion of their views.

True, but what's more interesting still is how they honestly believe that they are applying it to their own views.

Philip wrote:Sexy stuff, Jac!

I bet when Jac's wife wants to get him turned on - she starts talking philosophy to him! Jac: "Oh, YEAH, baby!!!"

Dude, she says "ontology" or "epistemology" and I'm immediatly read to go.

then again, she could say pretty much any word in any language, or say nothing at all, and I'm immediately ready to go (wheverever she tells me to)

Dude, she says "ontology" or "epistemology" and I'm immediatly read to go.

NO doubt!

I'd say logic is not the strong suit of many, in any debate or discussion. People more respond to examples, real life examples they associate with. Such normally have little to do with logic, but if you can wrap logic around around a personal narrative, then it's extremely powerful.

It is important, I think, just as much as it is people to understand philosophical foundations from logical and rational types, logical and rational types to understand that people are also emotional passionate beings.

There aren't many, apologists who successfully bring both together. I can only think of one, perhaps two, and one I really bore of quite quickly as he gets side-tracked. Actually three, but one's gone to Christ already. Ravi, Lennox and Lewis. Oh a few more, are coming to my head now, but my point remains.

I think that's profoundly true, K. We live our lives as a narrative. In fact, I think there's a close connection between narrative and consciousness itself. But, anyway, narrative and meaning go hand in hand for us, so much so that a story that doesn't have a meaning or a purpose isn't a story at all -- just a random collection of assertions. So that's the way we live, that's the way we think, that's the way we communicate, and that's the way we find and make purpose and meaning. "Story" is simply the most effective tool of persuasion we have. Get somebody to tell themselves the story you want them to, and you've won 90% of the argument you're having.

I've been testing a new philosophical approach to skeptics and it seems to be more effective than anything else I've tried and that is just pointing out how there is no evidence atheism is true. The next thing you know,I have a thread full of atheists explaining to everybody why they are excluded and don't needs any evidence to know they are right. I just say stuff like explain again why you don't have to have any evidence to be an atheist.

I've been testing a new philosophical approach to skeptics and it seems to be more effective than anything else I've tried and that is just pointing out how there is no evidence atheism is true. The next thing you know,I have a thread full of atheists explaining to everybody why they are excluded and don't needs any evidence to know they are right. I just say stuff like explain again why you don't have to have any evidence to be an atheist.