Challenge for Atheists: Define God

You might want to consider the fact that they had to have had some understanding of those things, else they would not have been able to place a fitting name upon them. Now whether or not that understanding is/was compatible with the understanding of those same things today, is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit but they sure taste different. For you to say they had "zero understanding" is something that I speculate that you can never show proof that would support your presumptuous assertion.

 

I am an Agnostic but I would define GOD as a COLD BEER on a hot day.

AboveAlpha...OH MY GOD IS THAT GOOD!!

 

they had no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea, Inc. read up on medieval medicine.

 

Yeah... I can see that... Those that did not see God being involved were those given to childlike theatrics with simplistic parameters. Good point.

 

I have read up on some medieval medicinal practices... and guess what... at least one of them is still used today... using maggots to clean the infections out of particular wounds in the body. Oh... and another one.... drilling a hole in the skull to relieve pressure that is caused by fluid build up in the cranium.

 

UNBELIEVABLE SOPHISTRY. not surprising, but unbelievable none the less.

Of course I have not seen a sub-atomic particle with my naked eye. Hell I haven't seen a bacteria or a virus with my naked eye but only the ignorant and the stupid would even think to debate their existence.

A very very large part of the advancement of the sciences is due to the orders of magnitude increase in technology to extend our senses into both the micro and macro levels of existence.

Hubble's work with the Palomar telescope, the most powerful at the time, resulted in two revolutionary discoveries, one that the universe is expanding and the other was that the fuzzy nebulae observed by other astromoners using less powerful telescopes could not explain were in fact other galaxies. That was in the 1920's.
the humane genome could not have been revealed to us without "senses extending" technology.

Science can prove lots that is true. Like some humans are smarter than others. That the laws of thermodynamics are true. That the four fundamental forces are true. That e=mc2 is true. That bacteria cause infections. That polarity exists. That there is a part of the light spectrum that humans cannot perceive, likewise there is a range of sounds (both higher and lower) than our ears cannot perceive - (wanna debate the existence of infrared or ultrasound?)

And I couldn't care less that you reject the mountains of evidence of those truths because you claim it does not compel your mind to accept them as true. They do say ignorance is bliss - but I suspect it was an informed person who so opined.


Lexical semantic arguments are specious, spurious and intellectually dishonest.

 

From the same article:

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

 

Fine... then let us debate the subject of 'existence'. How is anything determined to be real or true (or to exist)?

 

Again, you resort to an absurdity, as I don't recall anyone mentioning "monkeys" flying "out of" your "ass tomorrow".

 

Seriously?

As individual's we shape our own perception of reality within our minds.
I choose to define reality by mine and others empirical interactions and the experiences and evidence that such interactions generate.
Naturally our perceptions of that reality are limited to our senses, our intelligence and our creativity (imagination).

However, the reality outside our heads is pretty damn consistent in both its characteristics and its impact upon our senses and sensibilities.

as to what is reality? I leave that for philosphers to contemplate in the abstract.





My version of reality is no better than anyone else's, since they can't experience mine and I can't experience theirs.

 

I quoted from the article you quoted from, or didn't you read the whole thing?
The author was communicating that rejection of science because there is no such thing as scientific "proof" (as opposed to evidence) is absurd and he used "Monkeys flying out of his ass" to communicate exactly how absurd he thought that position.

 

I really get a GOOD LAUGH when a member posts a LINK to some author who attempts to disparage SCIENCE.

What is really funny is these authors who are so willing to condemn science are perfectly willing to use technology such as the internet and their cell phones and computers to get their anti-science message across but they never talk about the SCIENCE involved that made this possible for them!! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

For every successful trepanation, there are a hundred absurdities. That a handful of methods turned out to be the goods doesn't really make much difference to their cluelessness. Hence the prolific death.

Naming something mysterious doesnt make it less mysterious.

 

Yes! Seriously. This section of the forum is dedicated to Philosophy and Religion, so science would have little to do with this section of the forum... unless you are calling science a religion or else you make reference to the philosophy of science. So, we are naturally all amateur philosophers on this forum, therefore, I figured that since you are engaging in a philosophical question then you might be interested in 'what is reality'? Looks like I figured correctly, as you even went so far as to provide your method of defining what reality is.... and made the distinction of saying that what is reality to one might not be reality to another. So now the question is whose reality is correct, mine, yours, or that of someone else?

 

Strange indeed. I don't recall seeing any quote marks in your former posting indicating where your own words ended and the alleged quote began and ended. Could you possibly make that necessary correction to the former post?

 

then the naming of something 'mysterious' in this day and age, is no worse than what the people of the old days of mysticism used. 'Oh well, we will call this such and such and no one will ever question our supposed authority. If they try, then we will simply humiliate them till they go away.' Welcome to the world of 'call it anything' with the naming of things that are 'mysterious'. Well, I still have not seen any physical evidence that would amount to a PROOF of the existence of a "Multiverse". Got any?

 

I recommend that you educate yourself as to what Hawking is talking about when it comes to a singularity because it is patently obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Matter did not "suddenly appear". The singularity was comprised of matter.

 

I guess the "colon" wasn't enough for you to recognize some of the content of your linked article.

Seems pretty obvious to me, but hey, I'm not a grammar Nazi.

 

My version is correct for me.

My point was that human perception of reality is an individual experience.

While it is clear that the perceptions of some individuals is impacted by the state of their mental health, their intelligence, their creativity, its still an INDIVIDUAL perception.

 

Oh I saw the colon mark, however, I also recognize that people have been known to forget to paste the quoted material. There was that chance happening in this scenario, however, the article also did not say anything about monkeys flying out of someones ass either, so how you came to that interpretation is beyond me.

 

You forgot to mention their individual biases and prejudices... such as those held by the scientific community in limiting/restricting evidence to that which will only serve their monetary gain agenda.

 

Oh dear. "limiting/restricting evidence"? What a crock of absolute bat excrement.

Your rather outlandish statement is the epitome of unfounded bias and prejudice.

Apparently anecdotes are more than sufficient to cast doubt upon the entire scientific community or at least that seems to be what compels your mind.

Rather sad actually.

 

Considering its the last paragraph in the article, I am certainly not surprised you didn't read it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

(my bolding for emphasis).

The next time you accuse me of being untruthful, I suggest you first make sure I am.

 

Bump!

 

Not my problem.

Theists make the positive assertion, define what you are asserting.

/thread