+Monique Zorzella"Fairies and God are a different question entirely so we should probably not get caught up in irrelevant discussions. We already have so much going on."
Except the point was that they weren't so different. To believe in fairies is clearly silly, and this is because there is no evidence for them. The same applies to god."Assuming that something is false because it hasn't been proven true is still an argument from ignorance."
Again, that isn't my position. I literally just said that in the part you replied to. I am simply not believing X without evidence for X. That is not an argument from ignorance."This is an example of faith in that context, but you seem to be assuming that the Christian faith as a whole is the same as someone having faith that their evidence will be substantiated. Just because you belong to the Christian faith it does not mean that you believe in Christianity without evidence; that would be a false equivocation."
RIght, but we were talking about how you used it. You said I had faith in science or the scientific models, and that you had faith in god existing or religion. From the list of definitions you gave, the only one that matches and is relevant is the one that I gave, or the trust one. This would then be you equivocating. Trust is earned. I have trust in science because it demonstrably works. Demonstrate your trust is earned. If you can't, then the only definition left is the belief without evidence one."I get this, but methodological naturalism is a presumption that doesn't serve as proof for metaphysical naturalism. As a freethinker, you shouldn't be excluding any possibilities simply because you think some methodology tells you that you cannot consider it; that wouldn't really be free thinking"
RIght, and it doesn't try to be... I also never said that I wasn't open to it. I have been asking for a definition and evidence for a few comments now..."Something that isn't natural would be the simplest definition. I personally prefer the term transcendent. However this gives rise to a question that you need to answer: define natural. Perhaps the inability to define supernatural comes from the inability to define natural."
Not at all. If you're defining it as anything that isn't natural, then you also need to define natural, or you haven't really given a definition at all."No one tries to prove natural causation, I agree. This is because natural causation is presumed from the beginning. That is what methodological naturalism is. Does natural events having natural causes prove that the natural world is all that there is?"
No, and I never said it does..."I choose to believe in gravity because I feel that there is evidence for it. However, if there was evidence that attempted to prove that gravity is not real I would have to evaluate it objectively in order to judge the merit of the claim. If the claim was legitimate I would have to reconsider my beliefs. To say that there is no choice involved in beliefs makes it sound a lot like we are all indoctrinated."
If it is a conscious decision to believe, then you can also simply stop believing in gravity at will. Let's do a little experiment. Stop believing in gravity right now. You done it? Good. Now go jump off a roof. You're not going to do it are you? I wonder why that is? Could it be because you actually do still believe that things fall?"How so?"
How do we? You obviously don't just think "Yep. I'm going to decide to believe in that now." No. You realise that the evidence is convincing, and this is what I think you're getting confused at."If you cannot choose your beliefs then you cannot choose to believe in something based on its rationality. Your brain reacts to the input and whether you believe it or not is simply a consequence of your brain responding."
Correct, but it does so based on the rationality of the evidence, and your reasoning. It simply isn't a conscious decision."If we cannot choose what we believe then the fact that we believe something to be fallacious has nothing to do with whether or not our reasoning is actually fallacious, but rather it is the result of your brain reacting to the input and causing a belief to be held. In that sense we cannot really trust or brain to produce a belief because it is true, but rather it is produced based on our brans reaction to the input. The question then would be does the brain produce beliefs because they are true? This wouldn't seem to be the case if we are presuming that the brain itself is a consequence of natural selection motivated by survival; our beliefs are likely held simply because they convey a selective advantage. It would then be reasonable to conclude that you are an Atheist because the atheistic methodology conveys a selective advantage to the brain."
Right, but this doesn't mean we can't then think about it and recognise it as fallacious. Are you really going to get into the "we can't trust our brains because they are aiming for survival, rather than reality"? What is best for survival is clearly knowing the most about reality. It is simply that we can't know certain things, so when we hear a noise, if we are a tiny bit more paranoid, then we will think it is a predator, even if it is not then you are more likely to survive. This is the only consequence of that. You would simply see agency and patterns when there aren't meant to be, and this explains a lot of people's beliefs in god as well."Clearly stupid because you don't like it."
Or because it is just plain wrong..."Notice that I did not say that you have committed the fallacy in the conversation, but simply that you use the argument."
So please demonstrate that I do use it."If God exists then why doesn't everyone believe in God? God could easily make everyone believe him. The inability to reconcile this point is seen as positive evidence for Gods non existence. The fact that one does not know why everyone does not believe in God does not mean that there is not a reason for why God does not make everyone believe in him. This would be an Atheism of the gaps argument."
Nope. The problem of non-belief only works against gods that have a nature that mean that they would make you believe. For example, loving us an therefore not wanting us to go to hell and wanting us to go to heaven."There is so much evil and suffering in the world! If god was all loving and all powerful, why would he allow evil and suffering? He could easily end it all. The inability to reconcile this issue is seen as positive evidence for Gods non existence. However, the fact that evil and suffering exists and God does not simply end it does not mean that God does not exist. This would be an Atheism of the gaps argument."
It does mean that when his nature is logically contradictory to the fact..."You wouldn't think so as someone who is an Atheist."
It's not about what I think. It's about what's true."How so?"
Well I experience being able to see long distances without seeing any unicorns. Them being invisible means that I wouldn't see them. Therefore, it is consistent. How is it inconsistent at all?"Sure, but no one has ever attempted to clam that they experienced a leprechaun who revealed that the world was made from bodily secretions. This is an unfalsifiability fallacy."
But people have claimed that they have experienced a being who lives outside of time and space who revealed that he made the universe 6000 years ago. That is no less extraordinary a claim, and yet people believe it.
Even when you have people who think that god simply made the big bang happen, that is also unfalsifiable, but people believe that too."I find it odd that you bring up Christianity when the person who made the prediction was Jewish. Second of all, I'm not attempting to prove Christianity so let's stay on topic. My point about this prediction is that it is consistent with what we understand about our reality."
But this prediction has nothing to do with a god existing."I never said anything about the big bang, or that this is exactly what science says. I said that he was able to predict that our visible universe came from a single point by using the bible as his reference."
Except only with a very strange and loose interpretation of what it actually says."I'm not claiming to know that God caused the big bang; I'm not even arguing for the big bang theory in particular. Notwithstanding that, It's not a God of the gaps argument if I am offering another piece of evidence. Perhaps you don't think that the bible is valid, but I'm not simply filling a gap of knowledge with God did it. I believe that the bible is a historical document that can lead us to understand truths, and where science is incapable of answering questions such as how the universe came Into being I find that that the bible offers valid answers."
I can give answers that are just as "valid" as the bible, but that does not mean they are correct, or that it is rational to accept them."Not at all."
Yes at all. Please give the bible quote that he used to say that the universe was once a singularity then, and we will see just how loosely interpreted it is."The particles - which can be described as dust - required to form biological materials would have had to fall into this primordial body of water. Sounds consistent to me. You're free to disagree."
So what you're saying is basically that life started from very small stuff. Wow. That's quite the prediction..."My point is that is it perfectly consistent with what we understand about the world. You are seeking natural causal explanations for events, while I am speaking about the agent that guided the process. I still expect that natural events have natural explanations so I look forward to filling in the gaps of our knowledge. However methodological naturalism does not necessarily show that metaphysical naturalism is true."
And nobody has ever said it did."I believe in free will and predetermination. But this is another discussion."
The two are literally opposites, unless you define one of them differently from how they are normally used."Of course it does. If the bible is said to be a divine testament that we can learn about God from, then I should be able to use it as a basis for understanding the world around me. One of those things that the bible says is that the universe is predetermined. This, along with the other points I have brought up give validity to the bible as being reliable source material."
The universe being predetermined is also completely consistent with a god not existing, and thus it is not evidence for a god existing. It can only be evidence when it actually eliminates other explanations, otherwise, you could say the universe existing is evidence that I can fly because the universe would need to exist for me to be able to fly."You said that people claim that they are experiencing the supernatural when they really aren't. How do you know that?"
I said they are not justified in doing so. I did not say that they weren't."Its more like waking up to a burnt hand and then trying to figure out how it happened. You could come up with a plausible scenario where you fell asleep by the counter and your hand fell into a boiling pot, but there could be other possibilities like someone put your hand into a billing pot on purpose but you were too drunk to remember, or you put your in hand in the pot deliberately as a dare. Science only explores one particular way of describing the world around us, but there are many other disciplines that we can gain knowledge and truth from"
Such as? Please give a method, other than investigating phenomena that we can reliably gain knowledge from. Hell, even if you can, please tell me how just feeling something to be true is a reliable method of determining what is true, which is exactly what the people who believe that they have experienced the supernatural are doing."Even if that were true that doesn't mean therefore metaphysical naturalism. You can take that leap of faith if you want"
Seriously, what is with you and trying to put words in my mouth. I even clarified my position a few times, so your continuing attempt to strawman me is getting rather irritating."This sounds like an Atheism of the gaps argument to me.It seems like a bit of a double standard to say that you are allowed to make assumptions based on incomplete evidence, but if a believer does it it is a argument of the gaps"
That's because you simply aren't getting that science isn't claiming that anything exists as one of its assumptions."I asked what is incorrect about believing it, not whether or not the belief itself is incorrect."
If the belief is incorrect, then you are incorrect in believing it..."That's an argument from ignorance"
Again, seriously? I didn't say your belief was wrong, but that you weren't justified. If there is no evidence for X, then you are not justified in believing X. That is not an argument from ignorance.