Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 2, 2010 at 8:52 am)Caecilian Wrote: Otoh, there are theists like fr0d0 (type-f) who actively reject the idea that 'god' should have explanatory power. Not only does type-f theism not conflict with science, it can't conflict with science, since it doesn't overlap with science in any way.
From what I've seen from the fr0d0-type ;-) he does not reject the idea that god should have explanatory power but he purports that god exists and at the same time is unknowable. There is some fundamental reason that we never can find evidence for his existence. The problem with that point of view is that such a god concept does not allow for any god attributes to be known to man. Still you will find him attributing all kind of stuff to his god. The concept is deeply incoherent.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Rabbit. I do assert that God has no explanatory power. How can I think that nothing of God is knowable when I accept as truth what the bible says about him??
June 2, 2010 at 8:58 pm (This post was last modified: June 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
But you could be an atheist for reasons based on science as well as rejecting the double standard posed by theists that deities don't need creators because they are simply 'different'. as long as you understand that atheism doesn't require science even if certain themes in science or documented human experience make atheism more reasonable.
(June 2, 2010 at 8:52 am)Caecilian Wrote: Otoh, there are theists like fr0d0 (type-f) who actively reject the idea that 'god' should have explanatory power. Not only does type-f theism not conflict with science, it can't conflict with science, since it doesn't overlap with science in any way.
From what I've seen from the fr0d0-type ;-) he does not reject the idea that god should have explanatory power but he purports that god exists and at the same time is unknowable. There is some fundamental reason that we never can find evidence for his existence. The problem with that point of view is that such a god concept does not allow for any god attributes to be known to man. Still you will find him attributing all kind of stuff to his god. The concept is deeply incoherent.
Surely if we can never find evidence for his existence, then it follows that he doesn't have any explanatory power. In fact can't have any explanatory power.
I suspect fr0d0 would say that 'god' gives him a greater understanding of the universe, but that understanding would probably be of a teleological nature, and nothing to do with the sort of causal and statistical explanations that we find in science.
Apologies to fr0d0 if I've mis-represented your views.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
June 5, 2010 at 10:14 am (This post was last modified: June 5, 2010 at 10:31 am by Purple Rabbit.)
(June 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Rabbit. I do assert that God has no explanatory power. How can I think that nothing of God is knowable when I accept as truth what the bible says about him??
Makes no sense frod. If you assert that your god has no explanatory power, your bible has no explanatory power, iow is meaningless. So is there some typo in the above or what?
Your dearest friend from 26th dimension hell, Purple Rabbit
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: Surely if we can never find evidence for his existence, then it follows that he doesn't have any explanatory power. In fact can't have any explanatory power.
Hmmm. There's one rule here: nothing is sure. Maybe our science, intraceable as it is to god, is his explanation for mankind. We definitely need some mystical vapour here.
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: I suspect fr0d0 would say that 'god' gives him a greater understanding of the universe, but that understanding would probably be of a teleological nature, and nothing to do with the sort of causal and statistical explanations that we find in science.
Hmmm, yeah...interesting mind read.
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: Apologies to fr0d0 if I've mis-represented your views.
Yeah, me too. And we take great care in trying to reconstruct consistency from nothing. However it cannot be excluded completely that some misinterpretation in the near future might have been arisen from some debating mishap in your past.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
(June 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Rabbit. I do assert that God has no explanatory power. How can I think that nothing of God is knowable when I accept as truth what the bible says about him??
Makes no sense frod. If you assert that your god has no explanatory power, your bible has no explanatory power, iow is meaningless. So is there some typo in the above or what?
Your dearest friend from 26th dimension hell, Purple Rabbit
2.
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: Surely if we can never find evidence for his existence, then it follows that he doesn't have any explanatory power. In fact can't have any explanatory power.
Hmmm. There's one rule here: nothing is sure. Maybe our science, intraceable as it is to god, is his explanation for mankind. We definitely need some mystical vapour here.
3.
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: I suspect fr0d0 would say that 'god' gives him a greater understanding of the universe, but that understanding would probably be of a teleological nature, and nothing to do with the sort of causal and statistical explanations that we find in science.
Hmmm, yeah...interesting mind read.
4.
(June 5, 2010 at 8:44 am)Caecilian Wrote: Apologies to fr0d0 if I've mis-represented your views.
Yeah, me too. And we take great care in trying to reconstruct consistency from nothing. However it cannot be excluded completely that some misinterpretation in the near future might have been arisen from some debating mishap in your past.
I've numbered the points for easy reference.
1. Does something have to have explanatory power to be meaningful? I don't really see how that follows.
2. Yeah...If 'god' is uncertain, then anything supervening on a description that includes 'god' is also uncertain. We end up being uncertain about way too much. In some versions ('god is the universe') we end up being uncertain about everything. Not good. Unsure how the mystical vapour would help here- looks like a lost cause to me.
3. Well, it turned out to be a correct guess, anyway.
4. Representing other peoples views is always a tricky business. Especially when you strongly disagree with the views that you're representing.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
(June 5, 2010 at 5:16 pm)Caecilian Wrote: I've numbered the points for easy reference.
1. Does something have to have explanatory power to be meaningful? I don't really see how that follows.
2. Yeah...If 'god' is uncertain, then anything supervening on a description that includes 'god' is also uncertain. We end up being uncertain about way too much. In some versions ('god is the universe') we end up being uncertain about everything. Not good. Unsure how the mystical vapour would help here- looks like a lost cause to me.
3. Well, it turned out to be a correct guess, anyway.
4. Representing other peoples views is always a tricky business. Especially when you strongly disagree with the views that you're representing.
Ad 1. If god has no explanatory power, than the allegedly divinely inspired bible has no explanatory power since it is the word of god. So it cannot explain anything to the reader that was intended by god. Any explanation about the reality we live in, that the reader reads from it, must be delusional. That includes perceived understanding of the teleological nature of reality.
Ad 2. Let's be clear, it seems a basket case to me too, Caecilian. But gods are made of rubber. You can bend 'm any way you like, any time. My statement is that with the illogical characteristics of the supernatural as a basic tool *anybody* can twist any inconsistencies with reality to fit in no time. In fact this has been done all over the planet for centuries. You find million year old fossils? No problem, god stuck 'm there as old as they are. You say that the universe has a bigger radius than 4000 lightyears? No problem, god made it look that way to us. You say there is genocide in the bible? No problem, it's all just metaphorical. Any way, any time, no problem at all.
Ad 3. As for now. Still it is inconsistent with "no explanatory power".
Ad 4. Yep, I can only agree. And by the noble art of dodging, bending, strecthing it's easy to create a moving target that is even less easy to nail down.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
