Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[socharlie]

it is my wager today, try refute it...

tell me who refuted Pascal?

 

[Sapiens]

There are two possibilities:

1) You're just a troll, or

2) You're unwilling to follow the link provided and waste time with questions that you should be able to answer yourself, a form of trolling.

I do not think it is worth my time to try to further assist you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

absolutely. I know. my intuition works fine.

But how do you know that it works fine?

now, can you tell me implications , in your opinion, what happened to me if I was not accurate, what harm would happen?

You would be wrong, and thus be operating under an inaccurate assumption that could lead you to make countless wrong decisions which can negatively impact your life and the lives of those around you.

It is a win -win situation.

No, it isn't. You stand to lose just as much as anyone if you're wrong.

Atheist has no choice - just to roll into it, wanting or not.

But the point is that an atheist, or at least the kind of atheist I am, is honest and doesn't make assumptions that they cannot justify. If I'm wrong, it's only because I didn't have enough information to make a more accurate determination. I still did everything I could.

 

[socharlie]

But how do you know that it works fine?


You would be wrong, and thus be operating under an inaccurate assumption that could lead you to make countless wrong decisions which can negatively impact your life and the lives of those around you.


No, it isn't. You stand to lose just as much as anyone if you're wrong.


But the point is that an atheist, or at least the kind of atheist I am, is honest and doesn't make assumptions that they cannot justify. If I'm wrong, it's only because I didn't have enough information to make a more accurate determination. I still did everything I could.

what do o lose? what atheists do not have?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

what do o lose? what atheists do not have?

If it turns out you picked the wrong belief system, and the belief system which is the correct one punishes people for believing the wrong thing.

 

[socharlie]

If it turns out you picked the wrong belief system, and the belief system which is the correct one punishes people for believing the wrong thing.

What do you know about my belief system? I am a Gnostic - my belief system is karma.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you know about my belief system? I am a Gnostic - my belief system is karma.

The point is that your assumption that you don't have anything to lose, whereas atheists do, is wrong. How can you be certain a God doesn't exist who exclusively punishes people who are gnostic?

 

[socharlie]

The point is that your assumption that you don't have anything to lose, whereas atheists do, is wrong. How can you be certain a God doesn't exist who exclusively punishes people who are gnostic?

God does not punish. God pushes us to self improvement. God punishes no one. Freedom is knowing it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

God does not punish. God pushes us to self improvement. God punishes no one. Freedom is knowing it.

But you cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and it is possible that you are wrong, and the REAL God will punish you for believing in the wrong God.

 

[socharlie]

But you cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and it is possible that you are wrong, and the REAL God will punish you for believing in the wrong God.

?First, why do I need to demonstrate my inner being?
and as pointed before some have no ability to digest this information.
I think of atheists as incomplete human beings, spiritually crippled. despite the fact that materially a lot of them are much smarter than I.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

?First, why do I need to demonstrate my inner being?

Because, if you can't, you have no way to objectively demonstrate it's actually true.

and as pointed before some have no ability to digest this information.

Then why believe anything? I've already demonstrated that your logic is fundamentally flawed.

I think of atheists as incomplete human beings, spiritually crippled. despite the fact that materially a lot of them are much smarter than I.

And I think you're utterly and completely wrong, and I think that view is actually extremely harmful.

 

[socharlie]

Because, if you can't, you have no way to objectively demonstrate it's actually true.


Then why believe anything? I've already demonstrated that your logic is fundamentally flawed.


And I think you're utterly and completely wrong, and I think that view is actually extremely harmful.

am I wrong? can you demonstrate it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

am I wrong? can you demonstrate it?

I don't have to. The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you are right. If you cannot do that, then there is no reason to assume you are correct over the billions of people who may think differently to you.

 

[socharlie]

I don't have to. The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you are right. If you cannot do that, then there is no reason to assume you are correct over the billions of people who may think differently to you.

nobody can prove me wrong.

 

[Sapiens]

?First, why do I need to demonstrate my inner being?
and as pointed before some have no ability to digest this information.
I think of atheists as incomplete human beings, spiritually crippled. despite the fact that materially a lot of them are much smarter than I.

So ... you'd describe Christopher Marlowe, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, John Milton, Percey Bysshe Shelley, and Simone de Beauvoir (to name a few atheists who have made major contributions) as incomplete and crippled? How do you stack up (aside from, by your own admission, not being on the same scale intellectually)? I submit that your construct of completeness and being crippled is more of an attempt to overcome feelings of inferiority with a in-group egotism than it is a description of reality.

 

[socharlie]

So ... you'd describe Christopher Marlowe, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, John Milton, Percey Bysshe Shelley, and Simone de Beauvoir (to name a few atheists who have made major contributions) as incomplete and crippled? How do you stack up (aside from, by your own admission, not being on the same scale intellectually)? I submit that your construct of completeness and being crippled is more of an attempt to overcome feelings of inferiority with a in-group egotism than it is a description of reality.

they are spiritually, intuitionally incomplete. As I mentioned they are very smart people. I can not compare , say, Isaac Newton with any of them.

 

[Sapiens]

Sure, Newton was bright, but much of the stuff he believed in was rather foolish, no? He was about as incomplete an intellect as we might ever find, no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

nobody can prove me wrong.

But that's not how you determine truth. You can't prove anyone else wrong, so you're just as likely to be correct as anyone else.

 

[socharlie]

But that's not how you determine truth. You can't prove anyone else wrong, so you're just as likely to be correct as anyone else.

I do not prove anyone wrong, I have my experience I rely on, some have similar experience and some did not, they still may have but some have no such experience and have no facility to share it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not prove anyone wrong,

Then we don't have to prove YOU wrong - that's the point.

I have my experience I rely on, some have similar experience and some did not, they still may have but some have no such experience and have no facility to share it.

Sure, but how do you know your experience (or, at least, the explanation you have for your experience) is an accurate representation of the truth if lots of other people have similar experiences and come to entirely different conclusions?