Sentence fragment.  "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what?  I'm not getting on your case for a typo.  I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence.


This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing.  When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions.  You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not.  If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of any assumption.

And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope.  You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for."  It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying.



The type of "description" you reference here is merely relative description.  Aside from the fact that any data provided by such "technological tools" are always subject to the frailties of our own perceptions (i.e. it doesn't matter how good the tool is if the tool itself, and the gathered data, are also subject to the frailties of perception), we already have examples of where such "technological tools" provide us with empirical data that lends to contradictory explanation.  A powerful telescope is a great example:  

On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe.  Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes.


In a practical sense, of course.  We needn't even consider cosmology to go about our daily life.  But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us.


First, I again remind you of the fundamental and crucial point that "philosophical gymnastics" are what allow the scientific method to work in the first place.  Science is predicated upon empiricism which is a theory of knowledge acquisition.  Empiricism defers to philosophy to say, "Okay, in order to explain 'objectively' in terms of empirical phenomena, we are going to control for the possible effects of observation by simply assuming that observation has no effects on physical phenomena."  This is an entirely philosophical assumption, and it is empirically unfalsifiable.  To empirically falsify this assumption would require that one collect empirical data of physical phenomena by means of observation in a universe totally void of observation (a contradiction).  You must then ask yourself why you are willing to make what Hume calls "a complete departure from science" in order to explain it, but you are unwilling to make such a departure for anything else.

Second, Harry Potter by definition is a false analogy to an Intelligent Designer.  Is is theoretically possible to empirically prove or falsify Harry Potter because Harry Potter falls within the scope of Empiricism.  It is not theoretically possible to empirically prove or falsify an Intelligent Designer because an I.D. falls outside the scope of Empiricism by definition.

However:   Your reply entirely misses the point about the requirement of a theory to explain theories in general.  

Edit:  The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with.  Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy.  Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction."  A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.

A few comments I'd like to make about this post:

1)  "Woo" is certainly abundant.  Woo exists most prominently when someone looks at some evidence or experiment and makes unwarranted assumptions about it, e.g. how Deepak Chopra might look at ideas of quantum non-locality and use it alone to make statements about all of us being 'one,' or something to that effect.

Woo does not exist where there is a valid or sound logical argument that either provides a basis for bypassing scientific explanation altogether, or for framing scientific explanation within a broader, valid philosophical context.

2)  Agreed, ad populum proves nothing.  Just make sure you recognize this also applies to the countless persons who believe Empiricism is the end-all to knowledge acquisition.  There are both things which provably exist outside the scope of empirical explanation, and methods of knowledge acquisition which provably trump Empiricism in terms of general explanation (e.g. how Philosophy can explain and validate empirical exploration whereas Empiricism cannot, etc.).

To this end, scientific "woo" also exists, and usually takes the form of, "Look how far science has taken us technologically and in terms of our understanding of specific natural processes, therefore science is the best method of exploration." 

3)  Also keep in mind there is no empirical evidence that validates the scientific method.  Science as a working method is validated entirely by Philosophy.

4)  Automatically equating things like God or Intelligent Design to "paranormal" is a form of intellectual dishonesty (for, if such things exist, they are not paranormal but real).  What we can do is equate "paranormal" with "unreal," thereby elucidating my point -- one who assumes that God or I.D. must be paranormal is intellectually dishonest in that he a priori dismisses these things as unreal without any rational basis to make such an analogy.

School bag on the roof is nothing. It is your rejection of God that will throw you under the bus.

Nobody has to do anything to you. God gave you the strength, in the kind of being that He made you to be, that you can reject Him if you want.

God wants you to accept Him, because He is the thing that holds you alive. If you reject Him, you reject your life and your self. God doesn't want that for you. But He also wants you to make up your own mind. He hopes you make it up the right way, so that you can live. But you have the freedom to make your decision as you wish.

Because of all this, no good Christian will attempt to force you to believe in God. No good Christian ever attempts to force anyone to believe in God. Good Christians tell the message about God, they attempt to convince, they call, they invite. But they don't force.

At the time your rejection is strong enough that there is absolutely no chance for you to accept God under any circumstances, God will know it. What He will do is unclear. He probably will let you die, then, giving you the thing you asked for - death - so that your sinning will be less than it would have been had you remained alive, so that you will be punished less in Hell for rejecting God.

I am not into taunting or playing around like a cat and mouse, or in your words like children on a school yard. The fact that you see it that way says more about you and then me, I believe.

I only brought up the fact that I have proof to answer the question. Why do I continue to believe? I believe because I have proof.

You act like I need to prove to you the existence of God to show why I believe in Him. I believe in Him and I have proof, that is why I continue to believe in Him (I believed with faith purely in the beginning). I don't need to prove His existence to you for me to believe in Him.

I was simply answering your question, not trying to be contrary. As the joint wrote below, and I already stated, I know my proof will not prove God to you.


BTW, I'm a female.

And yet, I would never call someone "gay" as a derogatory thing.

1)
Objective evidence/proof as she made a claim that required objective evidence/proof.  I asked why she thinks her religion of Christianity was true and Islam was false, which is what she implied by saying only the bible God should be worshipped. I think she got confused with the question and thought I just asked for proof of God, which I didn't.
Claiming Islam is incorrect with just subjective proof is silly, because Islam claims their religion is correct with objective evidence. (They also believe subjectively as well of course.) No need to go into detail but it goes along the lines of the Quran says this that and the other and the bible says this so the Quran must be only correct one, and so forth. This is objective, you agree? And surely objective proof/evidence must always trump subjective proof/evidence.
She failed to put any objective evidence/proof on the table, thus failed to answer my question.

I'm sure your going to tell me I've got it all wrong now. I know my limits, I'm not arguing with you, you'll blow me out of the water. LOL.


2)
Believe it or not I regularly go back over your post history to read what you've written, even on threads I've never posted in. In fact, your in my top 5 of posters I like reading.
I admit some of your stuff is too heavy for me and goes way over my head, but I do try.

Anyway I am paying attention to what you say, so yes there is logical proof as well.

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Jesus spent most of His time in the presence of what they called the worst of the worst back in the day. I'm not calling homosexuals the worst of the worst, just pointing out that Jesus never said to shun anyone, or to be mean to anyone. He said to love your neighbor as yourself. To do unto them as you would have done unto you.

So anyone engaging in hate, is sinning.


You asked how I came to the conclusion, and I gave you my answer. I believed, and I got proof.

I don't need to prove it to you with objective evidence to answer your question of how I came to the conclusion I did. I answered your question.  I don't need to prove His existence to you for me to believe in Him.

Yes, and the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole that swallows Earth, but these two scenarios are extreme improbabilities. I understand you don't see the distinction between possibility and probability, but scientists tend to discount extreme improbabilities when forming analysis or offering guidance. Science regards all matters with doubt by default, and even much of Old science has been debunked by New Science. it is only the Strongly Evidenced ideas that break out of Doubt's gravity well and reach Living Theory outer space.

This is why science is cumulatively providing a more and more accurate description of the universe, and why technology has been evolving so rapidly since the dawn of modern Reason. Meanwhile religion keeps offering the same shitty old Bronze Age assumptions for 2,000 years straight.

You wrote, "Theist ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones."

I said it has nothing to do with them being theist. Just like the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people," "being Christian doesn't make one hate, people make people hate, and people hurt people." The angry and bigoted people in the world are not ALL religious.

You spent way too much time on that post. Probability doesn't matter. You act like all Christians hate people. That's the opposite message of Christianity. You tend to spend too much time in the all or nothing frame of mind, that you dismiss that SOME people are hateful and not religious. And as long as some people exist who hate and are not religious, then religion does not cause all the hatred in the world.

Your sentence should have read "ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones."

There's no need for the word theist. You're just being inaccurate to exclude people.

If you truly believe this, you're a hypocrite unless you get off that computer and start living without all the evil false-technology science has provided you, like the Amish do. Use only technology before the scientific method (~pre 1600).

Western people were very different, ethically speaking. If you want some insight on this, compare life in Middle East today to life in modern France,  or just go watch Game of Thrones for a bit, or just read your own fucking Bible.

Back then, virtually everyone was religious, and there were no scientists. Under 10% of the population was literate. What was life like? People were torturing, enslaving, raping and burning each other alive regularly, as in these activities were relatively commonplace.

We don't let theists get away with that shit in the civilized parts of the world anymore. This is because reason slowly compels ethics toward total compassion, and has been doing so for 2,000 years.