'Rational'

firedragon said:

How do you propose that theism is to be proven by science?

Can you give an example of a test that you could repeat?

Click to expand...

You can't. Theism can be proven to exist, but that is trivial and I assume that you mean to ask how it can be proven to be true.

That is both impossible and unnecessary. Why? Again, in the sense that theism is true for the believer it is a trivial matter. And if we are attempting to claim that there is actually a belief in a deity that holds true for non-believers as well... that just does not make sense. It is just hubris compounded by confusion.

Sorry, but your goal seems to be broken from conception, and can't really be justified, let alone fulfilled.

Stonetree said:

I respect your beliefs. I respect a Theist's beliefs...You pose,"theists have the right to be theist" then add they do not deserve any measure of respect based on the belief that science based observations and findings are god like commandments.

Click to expand...

I reserve the right to point out when theistic beliefs do not deserve respect, as well as the right to actually deny those beliefs respect, of course.

It is basic ethics and, all too often, it is also basic civic duty. Unfortunately.

But science does not have anything to do with that. Nor have anything that I would call "my beliefs" either. To suggest otherwise is at best a failure of understanding.

Heyo said:

Is it independently repeatable?

Click to expand...

Every day

LuisDantas said:

You can't. Theism can be proven to exist, but that is trivial and I assume that you mean to ask how it can be proven to be true.

That is both impossible and unnecessary. Why? Again, in the sense that theism is true for the believer it is a trivial matter. And if we are attempting to claim that there is actually a belief in a deity that holds true for non-believers as well... that just does not make sense. It is just hubris compounded by confusion.

Sorry, but your goal seems to be broken from conception, and can't really be justified, let alone fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Thats just irrelevant to the question I asked.

If you don't have an answer, you should not contradict science and ask for scientific evidence. Let me ask again.

How do you propose that theism is to be proven by science?

Can you give an example of a test that you could repeat?

Polymath257 said:

Absolute truth value? No. There is no certainty about the real world. But there can be better or worse support based on observations.

Science doesn't always get things right. But it's strength is that it has an error correction process. And, over time, each individual case is described with increasing accuracy.

Click to expand...

Yes, we live in a probabilistic universe; so given enough information, we can obtain a definite probability of particular outcomes, eventualities etc. We can even, perhaps, assign a probability value to the likelihood of a given theory about the world being correct. Bayes Theorem was an attempt to do this, I believe, making adjustments for new information.

But it seems that the most successful contemporary scientific theories are beset by controversy at the point where data gives way to description, or explanation, of what is actually happening in the natural world.

Without an ontology, thus without a metaphysics, science cannot provide us with a complete description of the universe. Perhaps it’s unreasonable to ask this of science; it could be that the fundamental structures of the universe, and the laws governing it, are beyond human understanding and always will be.

The human mind has it’s limitations, as does every tool available to us, scientific method included. From my perspective, that which is without limits is that which I call God.

mikkel_the_dane said:

And I don't think that it matters what you think, if I can think differently. So which one is correct?

Click to expand...

Which one is correct (atheism or theism)?

Hasn't that thread been done before?

I like this new thread where we are distinguishing rational from non-rational beliefs.

I guess you're being jockular/humorous but... it very much does matter what another person thinks, even if you or I can think differently. After all, maybe we're wrong.

"I have my reasonable idea, and these are the reasons I have it." -- "You have your rational idea" (with the reasons you've listed)... that seems like a great place to start a discussion.

ElishaElijah said:

I needed a doctor and there was no doctor who could help me. When I cried out to God He delivered me just like the Bible describes. I guess I really feel bad for everyone that has it all together and doesn’t need anything.
I went into the drug and alcohol treatment center thinking it was a joke and came out knowing the power of God and a year later met Jesus Christ and was given the gift of Eternal Life!

Click to expand...

And I find coincidences happen all the time. They don't imply the existence of a deity.

And given that other people find Allah, or Krishna, or whatever other deity, why should I give your anecdote any more credence than theirs? Especially when others can overcome addiction without a belief in a supernatural?

RestlessSoul said:

Yes, we live in a probabilistic universe; so given enough information, we can obtain a definite probability of particular outcomes, eventualities etc. We can even, perhaps, assign a probability value to the likelihood of a given theory about the world being correct. Bayes Theorem was an attempt to do this, I believe, making adjustments for new information.

But it seems that the most successful contemporary scientific theories are beset by controversy at the point where data gives way to description, or explanation, of what is actually happening in the natural world.

Without an ontology, thus without a metaphysics, science cannot provide us with a complete description of the universe. Perhaps it’s unreasonable to ask this of science; it could be that the fundamental structures of the universe, and the laws governing it, are beyond human understanding and always will be.

The human mind has it’s limitations, as does every tool available to us, scientific method included. From my perspective, that which is without limits is that which I call God.

Click to expand...

One of the problems is the concept of "what is really happening" when it assumes a classical metaphysics. That inevitably leads to confusion.

Metaphysics is best when it helps with intuition and worst when it says how things must be. It is a crutch to help intuition, not a source of knowledge. An intuition pump.

What makes you think they're is something without limits? What evidence do you have for such?

Polymath257 said:

And I find coincidences happen all the time. They don't imply the existence of a deity.

And given that other people find Allah, or Krishna, or whatever other deity, why should I give your anecdote any more credence than theirs? Especially when others can overcome addiction without a belief in a supernatural?

Click to expand...

Addiction was the easy part, change of character, life of purpose, eternal life, given new desires, power over my lust, relationship with God and wisdom for life, and a clear conscience.
I have no fear of death or what might happen in this life, free in every way.

Polymath257 said:

One of the problems is the concept of "what is really happening" when it assumes a classical metaphysics. That inevitably leads to confusion.

Metaphysics is best when it helps with intuition and worst when it says how things must be. It is a crutch to help intuition, not a source of knowledge. An intuition pump.

What makes you think they're is something without limits? What evidence do you have for such?

Click to expand...

Well you're the mathematician, so you've probably spent more time pondering infinities than I have. Even if only as an abstraction, infinity and eternity are intuitive concepts which are easy to conceive of in a general way, but seemingly impossible to grasp. Both self evident and ineffable, which is a common thread in many esoteric theologies.

Rival said:

I'm on a roll lately...

I've been debating a fair bit today and yesterday and have come to realise that the way the word 'rational' is used is not what I'd consider normative. It sometimes seems to be conflated with 'true' or 'fact'. This is not the definition I'm aware of.

What does 'rational' mean to you?

Click to expand...

In case of religion discussions, rational means to me the following:

ceteris paribus, that is at the same level of evidence, mundane naturalistic explanations always trump supernatural ones. So, a supernatural explanation can be accepted only when all naturalistic explanations have been ruled out.

That might sound unfair, but it is reasonable, since we know the natural world exists, while we need to prove that the supernatural exists too. The first one is not controversial, the latter is. So, it is the latter that has a higher burden of evidence.

So, for instance, when a Christian tells me that Jesus resurrection has been witnessed by many eye witnesses, I can use as a defeater the fact that whoever wrote that just made it up. A simple naturalistic defeater that is also not so difficult to imagine. Everybody can make things up. It happens all the time.

Pending clear evidence that nobody made that up, it is much more rational to assume that it has, indeed, been made up.

And, therefore, whomever insists that it has not been made up, is not acting rationally. It just acts upon faith, or a psychological desire to believe that. Both processes being mainly psychological, and not motivated by pure reason, and therefore operating outside cold reason and logic.

Now, the question is: could I be wrong? Could I have dismissed a witnessing of the past about something that actually took place?

Of course. But that does not in the slightest invalidate the fact that my mistake was rationally justified.

Ciao

- viole

RestlessSoul said:

Well you're the mathematician, so you've probably spent more time pondering infinities than I have. Even if only as an abstraction, infinity and eternity are intuitive concepts which are easy to conceive of in a general way, but seemingly impossible to grasp. Both self evident and ineffable, which is a common thread in many esoteric theologies.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how physical infinity even apply to mathematical infinity? It seems to me in physical infinity one can't add or subtract its contents, only makes new things on preexisting things only. So in a way, if the universe is eternal, my constituent parts and makeup is eternal.

I can intuit existence being infinite in all directions. I think it's rather impossible that we live in an existence that is finite, with no beyond.

Eternal existence sounds likely to be as well. As for the universe, who knows? It seems to have a definite beginning, or it's constantly changing form.

firedragon said:

Thats just irrelevant to the question I asked.

If you don't have an answer, you should not contradict science and ask for scientific evidence. Let me ask again.

How do you propose that theism is to be proven by science?

Can you give an example of a test that you could repeat?

Click to expand...

You are obviously having some issue with what I said.

I was clear enough. Read it again. That might help. Or not.

ElishaElijah said:

Addiction was the easy part, change of character, life of purpose, eternal life, given new desires, power over my lust, relationship with God and wisdom for life, and a clear conscience.
I have no fear of death or what might happen in this life, free in every way.

Click to expand...

Yes, change of life style and character is always the hard part of addiction. But eternal life? Exactly why do you believe in that, in spite of all the evidence? Power over lust is good if you were being irresponsible.

Atheists also have lives of purpose and often have clear consciences. The difference is that we don't appeal to a sky daddy for forgiveness, but rather anyone we have harmed.

I have no fear of death. I want to live longer, to be sure, and the *method* of death might be unpleasant. But death itself is not a subject of fear to me. I will no longer exist. But I have 'not existed' before. I see no reason that not existing in the future will be any different.

RestlessSoul said:

Well you're the mathematician, so you've probably spent more time pondering infinities than I have. Even if only as an abstraction, infinity and eternity are intuitive concepts which are easy to conceive of in a general way, but seemingly impossible to grasp. Both self evident and ineffable, which is a common thread in many esoteric theologies.

Click to expand...

Every math undergraduate major has to learn how to work with infinite sets. If anything, I find it far easier to grasp the infinite than the extremely large finite (say, something the size of Graham's number or larger).

Graham's number - Wikipedia

osgart said:

I'm not sure how physical infinity even apply to mathematical infinity? It seems to me in physical infinity one can't add or subtract its contents, only makes new things on preexisting things only. So in a way, if the universe is eternal, my constituent parts and makeup is eternal.

Click to expand...

Why would any of that follow? Why would a physical infinity not allow addition of subtraction, given that mathematical infinities do? Why would the universe being eternal mean that any part of it is?

I can intuit existence being infinite in all directions. I think it's rather impossible that we live in an existence that is finite, with no beyond.

Click to expand...

Can you envision a spatial geometry with no boundary that is also finite? if not, then you need to open your mind to some of the possibilities.

Eternal existence sounds likely to be as well. As for the universe, who knows? It seems to have a definite beginning, or it's constantly changing form.

Click to expand...

Whether the Big Bang was the actual beginning, or just a phase transition is still being debated. We need evidence to be able to resolve the issue. And we don't have that evidence yet.

Polymath257 said:

Why would any of that follow? Why would a physical infinity not allow addition of subtraction, given that mathematical infinities do? Why would the universe being eternal mean that any part of it is?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure your adding anything new to an already existing infinity. How can you have an entirely new infinity to add when there is only one reality? I don't think that mathematical infinities apply to our actual infinity of existence.

Polymath257 said:

Can you envision a spatial geometry with no boundary that is also finite? if not, then you need to open your mind to some of the possibilities.

Click to expand...

Is that something that can be illustrated?

How do you know that can be actualized in reality?

blü 2 said:

How does it differ in reasonableness from "but the one who constructed all things is Supergnome" ?

Click to expand...

When most people think of the use of the word "god", they think of someone or something, that is more powerful than humans... and deserving of worship... in some cases.
For example, celebrities are treated like gods, because people think they have abilities beyond normal.

The original Hebrew word 'El' means 'god', which probably means 'Mighty One'; 'Strong One'.
So people for centuries understood one(s) mightier than living things on earth, to be god(s).
See Gods.

Almost everyone is familiar with Superman, so this may be easy to understand.
The Secret Hebrew Meaning Behind Superman’s Real Name
Superman was written by two Jewish writers, and his birth name Kal-El can actually be translated into Hebrew, revealing a secret meaning.

The name Kal-El has two parts, and each can be translated into Hebrew. Kal, or קל, means "easy" or "light" - but it's important to remember that with the creators' accents at the time, Kal would be read as Kol, or קול, meaning "voice." El in Hebrew, אל, means "God," thus Superman's name in Hebrew is קול-אל, which loosely translates to "the voice of God." This does not necessarily mean that Superman is God incarnate or even directly sent by God, but rather is an instrument of God - a person with incredible powers who saves lives and fights for the weak and downtrodden.
I found this article quite interesting, so I encourage you to read it. It's quite short.

So hopefully you got the point.
Anything mightier than normal / natural physical abilities is associated with 'El' - 'god'.
It's not a made up idea, that is used to fill some gap, but it is an understanding that ancient people have had long ago.

Think of it this way...
Suppose scientists did discover ETs - a type 2 civilization, when you tell children who are new to this world, ETs-type2 built X, you explain that on the basis of what you know. Not what you made up.
Likewise, Those writers are explaining what they know, rather than something they made up.

So that's the difference. God isn't made up. Supergnome is.
The fact that it requires someone to build a far less simple structure, like a house. It requires a far mightier someone, to build a much more intricate structure, like the earth, with its water cycle; nitrogen cycle, etc. That someone is known as God.

Why someone?
The house requires planning, a goal, and instructions.
This is what we observe in the things around us. For example, the earth, with all its resources necessary for earth dwellers.

That is using logic, reason, thinking ability, intelligence. It's being rational.
Imagining that chemicals came together on their own - undirected, random, etc. to form all the matter in the universe would be like imagining Supergnome, I think.

ElishaElijah said:

There’s only 1 God that showed up, the Bible is that record. So no this wasn’t just a concept in the brain of an individual.

Click to expand...

Then you can describe the real God to me, because in that case God has objective existence, is found in nature, such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not. And I'd be grateful if you now do so.

ElishaElijah said:

Now as far as atheism being rational, it isn’t because you would have live in a closed environment and know everything and be omniscient to say that there is no God.

Click to expand...

I'm an unbeliever, but technically I'm an igtheist, not an atheist (as you could perhaps judge from my preceding paragraph).

blü 2 said:

Then you can describe the real God to me, because in that case God has objective existence, is found in nature, such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not. And I'd be grateful if you now do so.

Click to expand...

Jesus said if you’ve seen Him you’ve seen the Father. Immanuel, God with us