Thought Experiment

[Eightcrackers]

How can there not be an objective reality?

I think he means "... that the reality we think we experience is objective".

 

[Whatsisface]

So that means real science is not possible. But Only Theists have a rational basis for believing that there is an objective reality and therefore real science is possible.

This doesn't seem right at all. Theists and atheists alike have the same mechanism for sensing the world around us, so If one group can't do science, then the other can't also, and visa versa. What counts when doing science is the perception of the outside world. If it won't work properly for one group, it won't work properly for the other.

 

[Eightcrackers]

This doesn't seem right at all. Theists and atheists alike have the same mechanism for sensing the world around us, so If one group can't do science, then the other can't also, and visa versa. What counts when doing science is the perception of the outside world. If it won't work properly for one group, it won't work properly for the other.

The theist only thinks they are better off:

"I can know that I'm not dreaming because my dream-piercing god tells me so."
"And this god itself could not be part of the dream?"
"No."
"Why?"

... and wait for the crickets.

The buck stops with your perceptions, god or not.

 

[Whatsisface]

The theist only thinks they are better off:

"I can know that I'm not dreaming because my dream-piercing god tells me so."
"And this god itself could not be part of the dream?"
"No."
"Why?"

... and wait for the crickets.

The buck stops with your perceptions, god or not.

Indeed.

 

[El Cid]

You dont come across that way.

Of course I don't - I reject Chrisitianity.
The Bible tells you that I am closed-minded, so I have no chance of coming across otherwise.

No, it doesnt have anything to do with the Bible, I have met many non Christians that seem more open minded than you.

El Cid said:
Ever watch the original Star Trek? Sometimes Spock came to the wrong conclusions by just relying on rationality.

Never on matters of objective fact.

El Cid said:

For an example, to determine whether your wife loves you, rationality doesnt fully answer the question.

I'm not talking about whether my wife/your god loves me; I'm talking about whether or not she (he) exists.

Please give an example where Mr Spock - or anybody else, for that matter - needed emotion to settle a question of the objective existence of a person, place, or thing.

So you admit that you can gain knowledge about some things such as whether your wife or God is good thru something else besides rationality? Glad to hear it, because some of your posts seem not to acknowledge that. But yes I agree that whether something exists is generally determined by logic. And so it is with the existence of God. His existence has been determined to be very likely by using the law of logic known as causality.

 

[Whatsisface]

But yes I agree that whether something exists is generally determined by logic. And so it is with the existence of God. His existence has been determined to be very likely by using the law of logic known as causality.

Causality isn't a law of logic, it's an effect we observe within the universe. For eg, that every action has an opposite and equal reaction isn't a law of logic, but a consequence of the nature of the universe.

However, I don't know how you calculate the Likelihood of His existence, because there is so much we don't know about the nature of the universe, upon which you base your calculation. Just because things in the universe behave in a certain way doesn't mean the universe as a whole has to.

 

[Eightcrackers]

So you admit that you can gain knowledge about some things such as whether your wife or God is good thru something else besides rationality?

You completely dodged my point - I am interested in the question of whether or not your god exists. This must come before any moral evaluation.
Why would I need anything other than reason, to settle this question?

Also, I do not admit that knowledge of whether or nor a person is good, cannot be gained by reason; you compare the person's conduct to your own definition of morality, which is a purely rational process.

But yes I agree that whether something exists is generally determined by logic.

"Generally"? I asked for an example of a case where it wasn't - have you got one?
If not, get rid of the "generally".

And so it is with the existence of God. His existence has been determined to be very likely by using the law of logic known as causality.

Explain how causality renders your god more likely than not.

 

[El Cid]

He didn't address the point I made to you, he addressed a different point.

I think he did when he explained that being open minded is not the same as being gullible. Being open minded is being willing to learn something new that challenges most of your assumptions and that could totally change your view of life.

 

[El Cid]

I

Because as a Christian we should always treat others with kindness and respect even when we disagree with them. ''treat different beliefs with respect generally.''

In the first place. Disagree presupposes equal preferences like apples and oranges as opposed to truth and fiction which are unequal. Besides what triggered my response was your point of respecting beliefs distinct from persons. We can respect apples and oranges whereas we do not have to respect delusions.

The woman at the well had some delusions too, but Christ respected her and calmly explained the truth to her.

Rachel Levine is an example. Thinks he is female while biologically male (married divorced and fathered two children) and we are culturally and legally expected to go along with Rachel's delusions.

I do agree that we should not tell a lie and call Rachel a her, but rather a him.

El Cid said:
You should just respectfully explain to them the evidence that they are not apes.

Evidence will not matter to many. Although it should. They, including the majority, have all the evidence they need and still hold to fiction and myths with rock-solid convictions.

You are right. But really more important than HOW God created us, is the fact that HE created us. WHO is more important than HOW. Dont you agree? We need to show how irrational it is to believe that we were produced by the random collision of atoms.

 

[El Cid]

It is not possible to be "too open-minded".
That's ridiculous.

Yes, it is. If you are too open minded you can be more easily led astray to accept things that are not true.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, it is. If you are too open minded you can be more easily led astray to accept things that are not true.

That's gullibility, not open-mindedness.

 

[El Cid]

Have you personally checked everything attributed to him in the Bible?

Yes.

 

[El Cid]

My point was that sometimes you have enough information to make a judgment that something is wrong beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore reject it, even if you don't know for certain what the right answer is. For example, I don't know how life on earth began, but I have enough information to judge that Scientology's claims about that are wrong, and reject them. And I think that's the case with moral teachings as well.

What if you have evidence that certain moral teachings are correct but you wish they werent?

 

[El Cid]

Because it also affects those who dont consent. It spreads serious STDs especially gay male behavior.

1. STDs aren't exclusive to gays.

Some of the most serious ones are.

2. That is not an indictment against homosexuality in general - what about monogamous gay couples? Why are they immoral?

They are going against human nature. All humans are anatomically heterosexual.

El Cid said:
In addition, gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence which endangers any children they may have and any police officers that try to break it up.

It's the domestic violence that's immoral, not the fact that they're gay.
Again, this is not an indictment against homosexuality in general.

You dont think engaging in behavior that has a higher rate of endangering others is immoral? Do you consider drinking and driving immoral?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes.

Sorry, I don't believe this.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Some of the most serious ones are.

Please name one STD that affects only gays.

They are going against human nature. All humans are anatomically heterosexual.

And why is "going against human nature" immoral?
Also, isn't abstinence also going against human nature? They aren't practicing heterosexuals, either...

You dont think engaging in behavior that has a higher rate of endangering others is immoral? Do you consider drinking and driving immoral?

No.
But driving itself endangers more people than does not driving, and more people than does gay sex.

Is driving more immoral than gay sex?

 

[El Cid]

As I've already said, since I can't tell the difference between what you call real science and dream science, this is not a problem for me.

Either F = ma, or F = ma in the dream I'm stuck inside. Same difference, as far as I can tell.

Since dreams dont operate on laws then dream science is not possible.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Since dreams dont operate on laws

If you dream that they do, what's the difference, as far as you can tell?

 

[Komodo]

What if you have evidence that certain moral teachings are correct but you wish they werent?

I'm willing to listen to any such evidence.

 

[Eightcrackers]

What if you have evidence that certain moral teachings are correct but you wish they werent?

What could serve as evidence that a moral teaching is "correct"?
What does "correct" even mean?