Observer wrote:
> Please explain "metaphysical journey" in as much as the search for god
> is fruitless. Such (this fictive god thing) provides not one iota of
> scientifically verifiable substantiating data for its existence or any
> act thereof in or on this/these universe(s) the concept of theology is
> suddenly transformed into the study of nothing and this god thing is
> the the nothing which is thereby studied.
A metaphysical journey is my own term denoting those private moments
of contemplation where one reflects upon the important questions of
his or her existence, which, as it happens, is not covered in our
science classes: What are we? Why are we here? Where are we going?
How should we get there? Will our actions have any cosmic
significance? And so on. Of course, atheists hubristically believe
that their worldview (and, as I've shown, it is a worldview) is the
answer to all of the important questions, though I dare say that their
testimony does not seem to be credible given that most of the atheists
I encounter online or otherwise have, under the auspices of their
uninformed presupposition that philosophy and theology are useless,
never even opened a philosophy or theology book. As such, they are
unable to even accurately represent the other side, supplanting civil
discourse will jejune incantations such as "God is fictitious", "There
is no scientific evidence for God", "God is morally wicked", etc.
> > Very good , for a christian.
See? I can accurately represent the opposing side. You obviously
cannot. That's fine. More than likely, I also don't believe in the
God that you don't believe in. Otherwise, I am giving you too much
credit and you somehow hold to the idea that my understanding of God
is inconsistent with him actually existing.
> Many of us have a much broader and deeper understanding of the
> biblical, sadomasochistic, psychosis that you will ever be able to
> grasp.
Actually, I know what the Bible says and there is not a single passage
you can cite that is going to shock me. Your usage of pejoratives
with regard to what you believe to be a fictional character (e.g.
"sadomasochistic", "psychosis") tells me that your atheism is more
visceral than cerebral and that you cannot rationally defend your
position.
> I for example was raised in a loving christian home and even
> attended a christian university ( refrain from using the word educated
> as it took me years to get a useful education and to replace the utter
> stupidity of what was taught me while under their oppressive and
> rather stupid brainwashing system) It was intensive study and back to
> back readings of the bible which repulsed me and provided me the
> benefit of atheism.
In other words, the Bible did not comport with the subjective morality
that you created for yourself, so you decided to believe in something
that you were more comfortable with. This is something that I'm sure
we've all struggled with as teenagers, but fortunately many of us grow
out of this. I think it is quite embarassing that a man of your age
has not... and worse yet, you've probably passed these vices onto your
children while continuing to negatively influence your
grandchildren.
> A flash of anger cursed through my body when I read that a relative
> dimwit like you so evaluated your betters. It seems that the village
> idiot is always the one who condemns those who are capable of
> obtaining a useful education and who are putting such to proper use.
Actually, I'm not alone in my opinion about Dawkins. As much as you'd
love to believe that your time and money spent on The God Delusion was
well, the fact is that you've learned absolutely nothing. As a
biologist, he is respectable. As a philosopher, he is a layman. Even
I could defeat Dawkins in a public debate, which is why he openly
refuses to debate William Lane Craig. He would be absolutely
humiliated. This also applies to Christopher Hitchens, who, aside
from being a decent rhetorician, offers nothing by way of logical
argumentation. His book is essentially a 200+ page diatribe against
God.
These books were tailored towards uninformed individuals such as
yourself and it is no surprise that you are taken in by them. They
are easy to understand and push the appropriate emotional buttons.
But then they also give people the false impression that their
arguments are sophisticated, which gives disciples the impression that
they are sophisticated by virtue of having read the books.
> All irrefutable and apothegmatic.
I could refute them in a few sentences and I'm not even a
professional.
> Once again the village idiot laughs at that which he can not
> understand.
I understand them perfectly. Again, much of the drivel that you
propagate on this forum is not at all daring or original. It has been
addressed ad nauseum by theists.
> You my stupid friend can not correct the intelligence which sub-stands
> the refusal to believe that for which no scientifically verifiable
> substantiating data exists proving either the EXISTENCE of or any ACT
> of your dumb ass a god.
Allow me to point out a few relevant facts here before we continue:
(1) I am neither stupid nor am I your friend. Even if I was an
atheist, I would not be your friend as I can assure you that whatever
worldview I take, I will take it for rational reasons. As an atheist,
I would distance myself from atheists who have stupid reasons for
being an atheist. I think it is also important to note that academia
is much different now than it was when you were a young lad watching
Howdy Doody on TV. Back then, it meant a lot to have a Bachelor's
Degree, $20k per year was a decent salary, and the surge of interest
in natural theology had not arrived. Times have changed, you have not
kept up.
(2) The assertion that there is no scientifically verifiable
substantiating data for the existence of God is a positive assertion.
I would like your scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
the fact that there is no such data for the existence of God, either
here on Earth or in the outer reaches of the Andromeda galaxy. If you
cannot provide such data, then I am going to use your own metric
against you and argue that your purported truth of the initial premise
is utter BS.
(3) Natural science itself cannot provide evidence of God because God
is excluded by their methodology. Accordingly, metaphysical
explanations for natural phenomena are not allowed. Furthermore, God
is not a physical being and is therefore not a proper subject for
scientiic inquiry. You may well argue that scientific inquiry is the
only provider of truth, but this is absolutely false when you consider
that the truth of mathematics, logic, and history does not stand or
fall upon the scientific method.
> That which can not be studied by the application of scientific method
> and which allows for no scientifically verifiable data as to its
> existence or which provides for accurate prognostications as to
> contingent and future events is irrelevant nonexistent or both.
Okay. What scientific study has confirmed your assertion that that
which can not be studied by the application of scientific method and
which allows for no scientifically verifiable data as to its existence
or which provides for accurate prognostications as to contingent and
future events is irrelevant, nonexistent or both?
Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what do you do with
mathetical truths such as the Pythagorean Theorem, Bayes Theorem, the
set of natural numbers, Gauss-Jordan method, set theory, etc.? What
do you do with logical truths such as the law of non-contradiction,
the principle of bivalence, the law of identity, universal/existential
instantiation, modal axiom S5, etc.? What do you do with the
historical existence of Alexander the Great, Socrates, Plato, Diodorus
Cronus, Philo, Pericles, etc.?
> To quote one of the most profound thinkers this world has ever known
> is Steven Hawking.
Stephen Hawking is a physicist. Since when are physicists the go-to
men for metaphysical issues? That's like an astrophysicist telling
you how to properly bake a cake.
Here is what William Lane Craig has to say with regard to Stephen
Hawking:
"The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery
and condescension of such a statement. Two scientists who have, to all
appearances, little acquaintance with philosophy are prepared to
pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty
colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University, many of
whom, like Michael Redhead and D. H. Mellor, are eminent philosophers
of science, for supposedly failing to keep up. I couldn’t help but
wonder what evidence our intrepid authors have of Mr. Redhead’s
laggard scholarship? What recent works in philosophy have they read
that form the basis for their verdict? Alas, they do not say."
"The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely
condescending but also as outrageously naïve. The man who claims to
have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it. One
might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking’s subsequent
exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of
unexamined philosophical presuppositions. That expectation is, in
fact, borne out. Like their claims about the origin of the universe
from “nothing” or about the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain fine
tuning, their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of
miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will are
asserted with only the thinnest of justification and little
understanding of the philosophical issues involved."
> You will find your self looking the fool to everyone
> with a brain and a useful education.
That pretty much excludes myself looking foolish to you, doesn't it?
> Why should anyone believe the hideous
> superstitious filth of the bible or for that matter why should anyone
> believe that such as a god thing (which can not even be defined ).
Feel free to check the Google records for my presentation of the modal
ontological argument. Nobody was able to respond to it due to my
usage of standard logical notation, which your friends were unfamiliar
with due to them not being education in logic.
> Give us only compelling arguments and provide scientifically
> verifiable data to back them up.
If you want me to defend my position, then you are not to restrict
what I can and cannot say. "Compelling" is subjective and I do not
accept that evidence has to be scientific in order to be sufficient.
> I personally wish you well but I detest the psychotic superstitious
> filth that has stolen your mind and even your humanity.
I really do not care what you think.