[hrothgar]

 phil_20686, on 2011-February-05, 10:15, said:

I could go on, but there is no point. Indeed, for nearly 17 centuries the position of all the major Christian churches (although for most of that there was really only one) was summed up as "The bible contains within it all the information necessary for the salvation of souls, but its inerrancy should not be considered to spread beyond these matters."

Agreed... Not much reason to go on because this last statement is ludicrous on multiple levels

1. What was this "one" Christian Church of which you speak? The Roman Catholics? The Eastern Orthodox? The Copts? The Georgians? The Armenians? The Western Schism? The list goes on...

2. Exactly which 17 centuries did this church exist? I assume that your "17 centuries" terminates with the Protestant reformation which is generally accepted to have started in the early 1500s... I don't think that you can really claim that there was anything approaching a unified concept of Christianity prior to the first Council of Nicea in 325. Indeed the entire purpose of this council was to attempt to agree upon niggling little details like "the Trinity"... I'm hard pressed to understand just where this figure came from

3. As for the whole Biblical Inerrancy statement: There's a reason that the Evangelicals had to issue the Chicago Statement and Vatican II issued Dei Verbum... No one could agree whether their churches advocated Biblical innerancy, Biblical infallibility, or something altogether different. Its ludicrous to presume that the early church, struggling with primitive communication systems and vast geographical differences had anything approaching a unified position on this topic. The history of Christian church is a history of a 1,001 different heresies.

Given that you are so blindingly ignorant about the basic history of your church - and this is basic stuff that I recall from confirmation classes and high school history 25+ years ago - why should we pay any attention to your attempts at more sophisticated analysis?

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 15:19, said:

And, of course, the refutations of these arguments [cause and effect re: free will] from time immemorial can be found easily as well.

list one or two, if you don't mind

Quote

I do appreciate your willingness to state the reasons for your beliefs, which you clearly have thought about and hold deeply. On the other hand, you've set up a straw man you call "atheistic materialism" to argue against. Not everything is material, even to an atheist like me.

i think he used that term because atheists are, almost by definition, materialists... if you are not, as you seem to imply, in what way are you not?

 Winstonm, on 2011-February-05, 15:17, said:

Quote

what exactly is an "irrational faith?"

An example might help: human experience has shown that horses cannot fly or that there is nothing above us other than the Earth's atmosphere followed by space, so it is irrational to believe that a human being was once flown to heaven and back mounted on the back of a flying horse, that this same human wrote down in a book the actual words god spoke to him, and that now in the 21st century all of mankind must live their lives according to the writing in that ancient book.

aside from the fact that there isn't enough time to correct all misconceptions people might have about this or that religion, your example does nothing to further an argument that christianity (for example) is an "irrational faith"

Quote

Another: Our understanding of nature is that something can only be itself, that a jellyfish cannot be two jellyfish or a jellyfish, a shark, and a squid at the same time. But some belief holds that it is possible that an entity can be three separate entities at the same time, and one being of these three lived and died as a human in order to be acceptable to the other three as a necessary sacrifice to themselves because of rules they created, rules over which they held total control to change.

From outside the beliefs, both would appear irrational.

as i've said repeatedly for several years now, we all (you included, me included) approach things from within our own worldviews, with our own preconceptions... if in your worldview the supernatural does not, cannot, exist then it would of necessity preclude other explanations... to deny the possibility of any one thing the explanation for which is other than material is the definition of presupposition... to say that the material is all there is because it's all we can observe says nothing about rationality

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-05, 17:33, said:

i think he used that term because atheists are, almost by definition, materialists... if you are not, as you seem to imply, in what way are you not?

Thought I answered that. Here's just one example: I don't consider rules, such as the rules of logic and some generalized rules of set definition, to be material. This has no connection with atheism.

[Winstonm]

Quote

to say that the material is all there is because it's all we can observe says nothing about rationality

It does by my definition of irrational faith, which is what you asked for. We have gone round and round about these issues before, so before we get into a rehash I would simply like to make some observations.

From your stated education, I am firmly convinced that you are a wealth of knowledge about the fact that the word "exist" has been defined and redefined ad nauseum, and even today there is not a uniform understanding of the word. We can, of course, go to a dictionary and find the common-usage understanding, but mostly we will find there synonyms rather than definitions. To be, is, happen, live, etc., have all been used as synonymous for the word exist.

I once ran into a rather interesting fellow named Bill Gaede who argued that the word exist could be used objectively if it were defined unambiguously. His definition was that exist meant physical presence, that which has shape and location. He further argued that after making this definition, one only had to objectively compare the definition to the proposed object or concept to determine existence. In this sense, there is no subjectivity to determine if god exists or not, as existence is defined. The definition tells us whether or not god exists.

You asked me to define irrational faith, and then claimed that my examples did not establish irrationality, but in doing so you used an apparently different definition for the word rational than what I proposed.

If there is to be precision of thought, of idealistic exchanges, then the definitions of the key terms must be not only precise but unambiguous. It is this very ambiguity of definitions that has caused the theist/non-theist debaters to chase around in circles for centuries debating with proofs and refutations, logics and rebuttals. but with no precision of definitions.

It may be well and good for Alvin Plantinga to use the S5 Modal axiom to establish that God exists, but without an understanding of what exists means he has really said nothing at all, has he?

Does he mean God is alive? Then is my Mazda also alive or perhaps it does not exist? See?

Here is my basic contention - I admit it may be either wrong or a wrong application of an axiom. I trust you will correct me if I err.

Either anything is possible, or anything is not possible. I believe this adheres to the LNC. I am strongly in the anything is not possible camp. I am in this camp because of reason - reason tells us by definition there can be no 4-sided triangles - and because of observations - physical laws have been repeatable and consistent without fail.

When we discuss possibilties, though, it appears to me that we must open the door of anything is possible, and thus if we posit an immaterial spirit that can mediate physical events, then we must also accept 4-sided triangles, intersecting parrallel lines, and married bachelors, too. If anything is possible, we cannot pick and chose what may not be entirely possible or hold out exlusions to our rule.

Once we go down the path of anything is possible, it appears to me we are simply playing a parlor game of what if, with no useful conclusions ever being found - but a good time is surely had by all, and it is great intelluctual stimulation.

LSD can also be great fun and intellectually stimulating, but I am not sure it is useful to conclude that tangerine flowers of yellow and green are floating over our heads.

I mean none of this as insult, and surely some very bright minds have been interested in and studied possibilities, but unless the words we chose to use are precisely and unambiguously defined, we will simply add to the growing and non-meaningful theist/non-theist debate dump ground, which, btw, is already starting to smell rotten.

[Winstonm]

A couple more points about definitions and the problems that occur. Here are a couple of random definitions I pulled off the internet:

Quote

Objective – is a statement that is completely unbiased.

Discussion: How is it possible for anything to be unbiased if it is based on an observer?

Quote

It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes.

Discussion: So two men stand in front of a house they have never before seen, and one guys says, the house is green, while the other guy says, it looks blue-green or maybe acqua to me.
What is the objective color of the house?

Quote

It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.

Discussion: so I look up Muslim and one book says the religion is based on a pagan moon god Allah, while a second book says no, allah is a generic word for "the god" and the Islamic god is the same as the one worhiped by the Christian and Jews.
And the objectivite fact between these two is...?

IMO a better definition of objective would be: observer independent. This definition seems to work well with the one suggested for exist. The blind man could grasp by understading the shape definition that the moon exists (by understanding other shapes he could feel like a cup) and also like the cup that the moon has location, yet he has never had a sentient experience with the moon.

The moon's existence would be objective, observer independent.

Quote

Subjective – is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures

Dicsussion: It seems easier to say simply observer-dependent, as a subjective claim requires an opinion of a sentient being, and is thus colored by the senses, regardless of motivations.

These are the definitions with which I am familiar and the ones I use, not to be difficult but simply to create a precise and unambiguous language so we all can understand that when I say my Mazda objectively exists, everyone listening will understand exactly what that means, that I cannot mean that my car is alive because the first guy who saw it was stoned on acid when he described it and he was certain that the car was breathing.


Even if that were possible.

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-05, 17:33, said:

list one or two, if you don't mind

I think you know that free will and determinism have a long philosophical history with many different takes. If you are really interested, look here: Causal Determinism
and here: Philosophical Questions of Free Will.

The philosophy of religion is replete with arguments to prove the existence of god, starting with Anselm's ontological argument. Refutations of those arguments and subsequent attempts to conceal the problems with those arguments continue to this day (in our time Plantinga has tried to fix the ontological argument).

If you are honestly interested in these questions, you can look here for more material: Ontological Argument: Immanuel Kant. And, of course, there is always wikipedia: Existence of God.

Seek, and ye shall find.

[barmar]

 phil_20686, on 2011-February-05, 10:48, said:

For example, if there is no god, and materialism is all there is, then there can be no free will.

So if you could be convinced that free will is just an illusion, you might be willing to give up your belief in god?

Because neuroscientists have found evidence that might just show that. They've done a number of experiments that show that when we think we've made a conscious decision to do something, the parts of the brain involved in "willing" become active AFTER the parts that actually cause the action. So in fact, what actually seems to happen is that the action starts to occur in a more automatic fashion, much as they do in reflexes or in the actions of lower animals, and then the conscious brain notices this and manufactures the "I willed it" thought.

Free will could be analogous to Newtonian mechanics. It's a reasonable approximation when dealing with everyday phenomena, but it's not the actual truth. It's an illusion like the solidity of material objects; in reality, they're made up of atoms that are almost entirely empty space, and the only thing preventing objects from passing through each other are the electromagnetic forces between them.

The point of this is that you can't use simple, everyday experience to explain the actual workings of the universe. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics have shown conclusively that "common sense" doesn't always reflect reality. Why should free will be any different?

Then again, if you don't have free will, then perhaps it doesn't make sense to talk about beliefs at all.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 18:00, said:

Thought I answered that. Here's just one example: I don't consider rules, such as the rules of logic and some generalized rules of set definition, to be material. This has no connection with atheism.

metaphysical laws, iow... believing in their existence leaves the atheist in somewhat of a bind...

 PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 22:27, said:

I think you know that free will and determinism have a long philosophical history with many different takes.

yes, i might have some familiarity with those concepts, just not in the guise of "refutations"

 barmar, on 2011-February-05, 23:05, said:

So if you could be convinced that free will is just an illusion, you might be willing to give up your belief in god?

i can't speak for phil, but there are those who believe an omniscient God exists... iow, free will isn't a necessary precondition for his existence - in their view, in fact, free will *is* an illusion

 Winstonm, on 2011-February-05, 21:48, said:

Discussion: How is it possible for anything to be unbiased if it is based on an observer?

it rarely is

Quote

IMO a better definition of objective would be: observer independent.

some (all?) definitions are contextual... when i use the word objective, it's almost always in this way... an object or view is or is not true regardless of an individual's perception

Quote

These are the definitions with which I am familiar and the ones I use, not to be difficult but simply to create a precise and unambiguous language so we all can understand that when I say my Mazda objectively exists, everyone listening will understand exactly what that means, that I cannot mean that my car is alive because the first guy who saw it was stoned on acid when he described it and he was certain that the car was breathing.

perceptions vary

[Winstonm]

Somewhat off topic, but I appreciate Richard's help in relieving me of some of my ignorance by referring to the Chicago Statement and Dei Verbum. I had been aware that Moody Bible College in Chicago had made similar claims, but I was unaware that an evangelical conference had been held to formalize the ideas.

From wikipedia concerning Chicago Statement:

Quote

Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. In the statement, inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic.

Is it possible to be any more purposefully vague, or to create a more opinion-based authority, than to declare inferred, non-surviving documents inerrant but surviving copies of those documents not? Isn't that pretty much a paraphrase of the Church position prior to the Reformation and the printing press - trust us - we will tell you what you need to know?

Can there be better description of faith than citing that long-dead authors' intents can be knowable by the expediency of formulating a present-day opinion about those intents?

Yet these were the Chicago conclusions of intelligent men and women.

Sometimes I ask myself if intelligence is measured by the ability to rationalize a position, no matter how unlikely the explanation, or is it measured by determining the most likely occurence, a best explanation to match facts.

Then I read an explanation of why intelligent people hold irrational beliefs: because their high level of intelligence allows them to formulate much more sophisticated and complicated rationalizations for the belief.

O.K. Now that makes sense.

[Winstonm]

Quote

perceptions vary

Yes, but a precise definition of the word "exist" eliminates perception in favor of definition. Resolutions become binary - something either is or it is not.

And then there is quantum.
Henny (Albert) Youngman fist explained quanta: You know, light is crazy these days. Take the idea of quanta...please!

Maybe a better question than is the cat dead or alive would be, does the cat even exist? The answer is, of course, but only if you don't know where it is or how fast it is going.

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-06, 09:58, said:

metaphysical laws, iow... believing in their existence leaves the atheist in somewhat of a bind...

Nope.

Classifying rules as non-material has no connection whatever with the existence of god. Nor does free will. No amount of sophistry can change that.

[mycroft]

re: the Chicago Statement:

 Winstonm, on 2011-February-06, 10:22, said:

Is it possible to be any more purposefully vague, or to create a more opinion-based authority, than to declare inferred, non-surviving documents inerrant but surviving copies of those documents not? Isn't that pretty much a paraphrase of the Church position prior to the Reformation and the printing press - trust us - we will tell you what you need to know?

Can there be better description of faith than citing that long-dead authors' intents can be knowable by the expediency of formulating a present-day opinion about those intents?

Yet these were the Chicago conclusions of intelligent men and women.

Lk. 18:9 "To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:..." It is written that Jesus told stories to make the Truth clear to his audience (in this case, the Jews present). So, why would a Rabbi (teacher) tell stories? Maybe because that was the traditional way that the Jews - to this day - learn and teach their religion? If so, how much of a mindbreak does it take to believe that "yeah, well, they didn't do that in the 53 books that a bunch of Romans took from a bunch of Greeks who decided which of the Jewish stories were Divinely Inspired and which were only Useful Teaching"?

Also, unless you believe in the context of anyone who ever, with proper intent, translates/transliterates/copies the Divine Word will be guided by the Hand of God inerrantly - and I don't know anybody who believes that, especially given 20th century archaeology - then the Chicago Statement that "only the originals were correct, and literal only when they intended to be" can not be anything but accepting reality.

So, it might be <church lady>Conveeeenient</cl>, sure, but it's the only conclusion that can, logically, rationally, and with any reasonable chance of being accurate, be drawn. If you don't like the fact that the Bible wasn't written with the rigour required of a mathematical textbook (and note that even with those, they start with a few axioms - things taken as correct without proof, and unprovable; in some cases, the resultant math is logical and "correct" with the axiom refuted (parallel axiom, axiom of choice)), well, then, one is kind of stuck, as that level of rigour was only truly codified with the Scientific Revolution (Euclid had that, of course, but not to the rigorous extent we have now).

The other issue is that we know that some of the Law has been superseded by the Great Covenant. It is interesting to note that Bible Literalists do a very good job of "deciding" which parts of they Law they feel are superseded (food and uncleanness restrictions, mostly) and which were not (I'm sure we can all iterate those).

And I do take a bit of stick at "the moderates" not criticising - after having just done that. If what Mr. Harris means is "because the YE creationists that insist on breaking their countries scientific future are batcrazy insane, I either have to say that Christianity is also batcrazy insane or I'm helping the YE creationists", then well, yeah. I'm calling fallacy of the excluded middle on that one. I realise that excluded middle is a very useful tool in preaching the Religion of Logic and Science, however; but of course, given that that is a fallacy, it's imperative on the "moderate believers in Logic and Science" to either criticise the Logic and Science, or they're helping the obviously fallacious.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-February-06, 11:48, said:

Classifying rules as non-material has no connection whatever with the existence of god. Nor does free will. No amount of sophistry can change that.

you seem to use the words 'rule' and 'law' as if they are synonyms, but they are not... aside from that, no post of yours that i've ever read leads me to believe that you are in a position to dismiss decades of writings and studies by calling them "sophistry"... if one metaphysical entity can exist, upon what do you rely to deny the existence of God? superior intellect?

[luke warm]

 mycroft, on 2011-February-07, 12:01, said:

The other issue is that we know that some of the Law has been superseded by the Great Covenant. It is interesting to note that Bible Literalists do a very good job of "deciding" which parts of they Law they feel are superseded (food and uncleanness restrictions, mostly) and which were not (I'm sure we can all iterate those).

they all were... the 'law' was a whole

[kenberg]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 12:47, said:

you seem to use the words 'rule' and 'law' as if they are synonyms, but they are not... aside from that, no post of yours that i've ever read leads me to believe that you are in a position to dismiss decades of writings and studies by calling them "sophistry"... if one metaphysical entity can exist, upon what do you rely to deny the existence of God? superior intellect?

Let me ask you about some of this. I might not call the metaphysics sophistry, but I see it as post hoc. So the question is: When you think of your faith, how important is the metaphysics in sustaining your faith? I realize that both metaphysics and faith are important to you, but I am asking you to sort a little. Try this: I can imagine my mind being changed. A finger appears in the sky, pointing at me, and says Repent. I don't expect this to happen, and I would check behind the metaphorical curtain, but I can imagine it. If I became convinced, I guess I might Repent. I cannot imagine that my mind would be changed by metaphysical argument. I really do not think any metaphysical argument could be devised that would change my mind. Can you, as a thought experiment, imagine that your mind would be changed on the existence of God by some philosophical argument?

Another way of putting it: I believe there is no God. If philosophy cannot support this view, so much the worse for philosophy because I am not changing my mind. Of course philosophy is fine with supporting this view and really seems to be able to support pretty much any view.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2011-February-07, 13:32, said:

When you think of your faith, how important is the metaphysics in sustaining your faith?

not at all... it seems so, probably, because of apologetic method

Quote

Try this: I can imagine my mind being changed. A finger appears in the sky, pointing at me, and says Repent. I don't expect this to happen, and I would check behind the metaphorical curtain, but I can imagine it. If I became convinced, I guess I might Repent. I cannot imagine that my mind would be changed by metaphysical argument. I really do not think any metaphysical argument could be devised that would change my mind. Can you, as a thought experiment, imagine that your mind would be changed on the existence of God by some philosophical argument?

probably not, but that isn't the point of the argument... the point is to show intellectual inconsistency in the materialist's worldview... if i were a materialist and if that position were incompatible with a metaphysical view i might hold, i could at least recognize the absurdity of the situation

Quote

Another way of putting it: I believe there is no God. If philosophy cannot support this view, so much the worse for philosophy because I am not changing my mind. Of course philosophy is fine with supporting this view and really seems to be able to support pretty much any view.

i disagree with your last point... as for philosophy itself being insufficient to cause you to change your mind on anything, so be it - spoken like a mathmatician who has known a philosopher or two... even so, as a mathmatician i'm sure you would feel at least a little uncomfortable with a stance that fell into logical problems

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 12:47, said:

you seem to use the words 'rule' and 'law' as if they are synonyms, but they are not... aside from that, no post of yours that i've ever read leads me to believe that you are in a position to dismiss decades of writings and studies by calling them "sophistry"... if one metaphysical entity can exist, upon what do you rely to deny the existence of God? superior intellect?

Let's review. Both Phil and you incorrectly stated that atheists have some sort of problem with the non-material. I refuted that by pointing out that I, an atheist, understand that rules defining sets are non-material, and that there is nothing at all inconsistent about using both material and non-material as classifications and also being an atheist. (Unless you define god simply as being everything non-material, which I'm sure you don't.)

I do dismiss of centuries of arguments proving the existence of god as sophistry, because each iteration has been carefully crafted to conceal the problems pointed out by the latest refutation. You only have to examine a small number of those iterations to realize that arguments for the existence of god will always fail. No word game can create an actual god. Note that I only dismiss one side of the long-running disagreement.

Those who want to add god to what is actually known have the burden of demonstrating why that extra complication is necessary, and those who have attempted to do so over the centuries have failed. And it is not difficult to see why such attempts are bound to fail.

I have no problem with people believing in god, if they need that level of comfort. However, atheism is simpler and more elegant and, unlike theism, does not run into logical difficulties that require oceans of pages of writing to explain away.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 13:57, said:

probably not, but that isn't the point of the argument... the point is to show intellectual inconsistency in the materialist's worldview...

If that's what you're trying to do, you're hoeing a very tough row...

Speaking as one of the "materialists", I don't accept the basic premise of your arguments because the so-called "inconsistencies" that you focus on are completely immaterial...

Case in point, I learned long ago that its pointless to try to prove a negative.
I don't lose much sleep over the fact that I can't do so.

It's entirely possible that my world view is incompatible with an "objective" notion of morality; however, I'm a moral relativist...
The standard that you set has no meaning for me...

(I certainly believe that societies can and should establish moral codes. I can argue why I personally prefer certain types of axiomatic structures to other. I can also argue why I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. However, I don't confuse this with objective morality and, as I've said many times before: "De Gustibus non disputatum est"

In a similar vein, I don't demand certain knowledge of the existence (or non-existence) of god...
My gut says that there is no god. I have no use for religion in my life.
A proof that god exists would certainly change my world view.

However, this uncertainty doesn't bother me and "proofs" that I can't be certain about X, Y, Z also don't matter.

I'd be interested to know just what "intellectual inconsistencies" you claim to have identified...

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 14:05, said:

Both Phil and you incorrectly stated that atheists have some sort of problem with the non-material. I refuted that by pointing out that I, an atheist, understand that rules defining sets are non-material, and that there is nothing at all inconsistent about using both material and non-material as classifications and also being an atheist. (Unless you define god simply as being everything non-material, which I'm sure you don't.)

you continue to use words contrary to my understanding of them... your use of "refuted" is an example... merely stating an opinion is not a refutation of anything... speaking of your materialism, how would you describe it? is consciousness itself based on physicality, based on that which is suspended in time and space? are emotions physical?

Quote

I do dismiss of centuries of arguments for the existence of god as sophistry, because each iteration has been carefully crafted to conceal the problems pointed out by the latest refutation. You only have to examine a small number of those iterations to realize that arguments for the existence of god will always fail. No word game can create an actual god. Note that I only dismiss one side of the long-running disagreement.

i asked you before to put into words that which you label a "refutation"... how many of those "centuries of arguments" are you familiar with?

Quote

Those who want to add god to what is actually known have the burden of demonstrating why that extra complication is necessary, and those who have attempted to do so over the centuries have failed. And it is not difficult to see why such attempts are bound to fail.

why must they?

 hrothgar, on 2011-February-07, 16:04, said:

It's entirely possible that my world view is incompatible with an "objective" notion of morality; however, I'm a moral relativist...
The standard that you set has no meaning for me...

i understand that just as you understand that such a thing as an objective morality either exists or it doesn't

Quote

(I certainly believe that societies can and should establish moral codes. I can argue why I personally prefer certain types of axiomatic structures to other. I can also argue why I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. However, I don't confuse this with objective morality and, as I've said many times before: "De Gustibus non disputatum est"

of course you can, just as you can explain why you prefer non-cannibalism to cannibalism

Quote

In a similar vein, I don't demand certain knowledge of the existence (or non-existence) of god... My gut says that there is no god. I have no use for religion in my life. A proof that god exists would certainly change my world view. However, this uncertainty doesn't bother me and "proofs" that I can't be certain about X, Y, Z also don't matter.

that's good, since (as ken pretty much said above) philosophical arguments rarely sway anyone

Quote

I'd be interested to know just what "intellectual inconsistencies" you claim to have identified...

a materialist cannot believe (and this is an example only) in a true "miracle"... lazarus', for instance, decomposing cells had to have been somehow regenerated had Jesus' command to arise actually occurred (and been obeyed)... what are the odds of such a thing happening, in a strictly materialistic world? zip, zilch, zero... how about on a quantum level? is it still zero, or is it now just *almost* impossible? are physical (speaking materialistically here) laws all there are? in the quantum world, can you really say that miracles are impossible? if you cannot, and if you at the same time insist upon your materialism, that (to me) is internal inconsistency (and this is quite apart from the whole causality aspect)

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 17:23, said:

you continue to use words contrary to my understanding of them... your use of "refuted" is an example... merely stating an opinion is not a refutation of anything... speaking of your materialism, how would you describe it? is consciousness itself based on physicality, based on that which is suspended in time and space? are emotions physical?

i asked you before to put into words that which you label a "refutation"... how many of those "centuries of arguments" are you familiar with?

I use "refuted" to mean "shown to be erroneous." I pointed out why your statement of opinion was erroneous and you haven't pointed out where you think my refutation is wrong.

It is a fact that I've been out of college for many years, so it would be a stretch now to claim "familiarity" with centuries of arguments. However I did take several philosophy courses and I think it fair to say, for example, that Kant refuted the ontological argument for the existence of god in his "Critique of Pure Reason." Do you disagree with that?

And if anyone had actually come up with a proof for the existence of god, after all the centuries of trying, it would have gained attention.

You won't be surprised to learn that I don't believe Lazarus really rose from the dead.