OvisAries

Well, I suppose it could be considered in that light. Though that's not quite what I meant. I did not mean 'positive/negative' in an 'uplifting/depressing' sense. Not at all. By 'positive claim', I meant the 'claim for the existence of something', as opposed to a 'lack of a claim for existence' as Dawkins and the gang portend. Between those two, the burden of proof is really on those of us with faith in God to try to prove our beliefs to them (Dawkins & co.); we can't simply demand that they disprove God and, should they fail, claim that we're automatically right. That's not intellectually honest and that's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with we who make the claim, and not with those who we present it to. Apologies for the ambiguity. If Vort wasn't giving me the silent treatment, I'd likely be banging my head into a wall for shame at the human race. I'm glad he stopped before his silliness drove me to extremity. I'd certainly agree that those are beautiful scriptures, and I think they're significant, certainly. Though I don't know that I'd exactly qualify them as 'scientific', as the process is really more subjective and personal than objective and factual. I'd not exactly call it 'science', because it's an intimate, personal matter, different for each individual, whereas 'science' is the same for everybody, by its very nature. I genuinely appreciate your insightful commentary, Colirio. It's quite refreshing. And Vort, if you're out there, remember: Jesus loves everyone, including those who deny the reality he's created. (Though personally, I find that it might be quite offensive to the lord.) God Bless! Ovis

What.* I'm speechless. *(It was a conscious decision to place a period in lieu of a question mark. It's less a question and more of a statement of utter shock.)

Huh. To my recollection (and by 'my recollection' I mean 'what you said verbatim') on 12-23-2011 at 8:31AM, regarding our knowledge of the sun: "Given how unreliable our sensory impressions are in many instances, I dispute that as "proof"." And then on 12-24-2011, 10:26 AM, regarding the existence of the sun: "Any demonstration you offer -- any at all -- will be based on sensory perception. That is the best you can possibly do." And in the same post, in regard to the notion of scientific measurements: "How do we measure any such thing? Is the knowledge of those quantities just magically transported into our very beings? Or do we use sensory input to, say, read a gauge?" And again in the same post, in response to me listing things we know of the sun: "Only through sensory perception." Time and time again, you dismiss sensory perception as a viable base upon which to claim that things are known. Meaning that time and time again, you have dismissed all that has ever been and will ever be known. I operate on the basis that our only method of knowing the world (sensory perception) is that upon which we must base all knowledge. If you stand by your earlier comments, then you clearly believe otherwise. And if that is the case, then we have found the root of our communication difficulties. Onwards. Just as you don't believe in unicorns, Dawkins and Hitchens don't believe in God. And the three of you reach that conclusion in the same fashion: None of you have been presented with any reason that you deem worthy to consider the existence of God (for Hitchens and Dawkins) or Unicorns (for you) as fact. Please notice: the onus is not on you to disprove the existence of unicorns. Similarly, the onus is not on Dawkins or Hitchens to disprove the existence of God. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. This is something you have seemed to misunderstand. I have no problem with your children. Evidently, I can't even wish you 'happy holidays' without you throwing it in my face. That's really not very Christ-like. Also, your comment is misdirected in any case. If you're going to be indignant, at least read what you're being indignant about. Again: my comment expressed no issue with your children. Merely with the notion of an adult man whose exponentially growing "facts that cease to exist when I choose to ignore them" folder is on public display. I'm only trying to be friendly. We're all god's children, whether we agree on certain things or not. Be my brother, Vort, as all men are brothers. So judgmental, such vitriol. There's no need to be nasty, Vort. I'll leave this here for your reference: 3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated. I would say 'God Bless', but you might take offense. Ovis

Anatess: I appreciate the compliment. I'm glad there are others out there who see the value in being well-versed in both sides of any argument :) p.s. I like Dawkins better too! Colirio: Forgive me, I did not mean to imply that if we sense something, it is therefore proven. As Vort earlier pointed out, we often sense things that aren't really there. Hallucinations. Dreams. Etcetera. I completely agree that our senses can be misleading. However: Sensory perception is the way in which the world lets us know it's there. In making well-studied observations and testing hypotheses, we must use our senses. Our sensations alone do not prove anything. But they do enable us to prove things, by interacting with and studying the world around us. And so my point is thus: Not everything we sense is proven. We can indeed sense in the absence of a stimulus, etc. But we must use sensation in order to prove anything, to know anything, to understand anything. Therefore, denying the validity of sensory perception is to deny reality, to deny existence, and to deny all that has been known, is known, and ever will be known. I apologize for the misconception.

Alright, hold on. Just stop. I've discovered the problem. It is that our premises are different. You've dismissed all evidence based upon sensory perception. Even 'reading a gauge' on a tool that we've built qualifies as sensory perception and therefore is unreliable, in your view. At that point, nobody can know anything. Ever. Any standards that literally any person in human history has used as "evidence" have been based upon sensory perception. Dismissing sensory perception dismisses reality. Then again, maybe you're okay with that. How can you know anything whatsoever, with that thinking? Did you read a book about something? "Too bad, 'sensory perception'! What you've read is unreliable and can't be accepted as evidence for any claim you might make. Just like reading a gauge is invalid for the same reason." How can you claim to know anything about physics? You likely learned it from a book. "You read the book with your eyes? Sensory perception! Or did you hear a professor lecture on it? Sensory perception! Sorry, invalid!" Even if you went out and did all of the research that makes up modern physics from the ground up, even if you went out and did it all personally, you'd still have nothing according to your premise of "sensory perception is unreliable and therefore cannot be used as evidence". Any and every observation, experiment, and interaction with the world that you would have used to personally build the entirety of modern physics would still net you nothing under your premise, because it inevitably regresses to sensory perception. And you "dispute that as "proof"", therefore rejecting all proof that has ever, and I mean ever been given, for any and every truth claim about reality. Either you accept that basic premise of human existence, that sensory perception is a valid basis for knowledge and proof, or you dismiss reality in all of your nihilistic splendour. You seem to have elected for the latter. The notion that you're a 40-something college educated man with children instills me with a truly profound sadness. Hope you had happy holidays. God Bless.

Indeed, when asleep, you are perceiving something real. The brain waves read by your EEG are indeed real. You are perceiving things, absolutely. A dream state is indeed a real thing. Your perception thereof informs us that there is something there. A dream state. No disagreement here. How does the sun affect things outside of itself? Surely you jest. You don't believe that the sun has an effect on external events? Have you ever been warmed by sunlight? Have you ever received a sunburn? Have you ever shielded your eyes from the blinding rays? Donned sunglasses? Have you ever (I think I know the answer to this one) existed upon Earth, which is kept in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction thereof? Have you ever experienced a 'year', defined as one complete revolution around the sun? Honestly, I could go on and on. Oh, now, mind you, it's not only what our five senses tell us that clue us in to the existence of the sun. I'll quote myself from a short time ago. It's been a few hours, so I can understand it having slipped your mind: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. " I'll add to that: "The gravitational pull that keeps us from hurtling into deep space, and the warmth that allows us to exist at all." What are you even going for with this statement, other than a derailing point? You want me to prove that there are some things that exist and others that do not? You don't accept that there are things that exist and things that do not? Ladies and gentlemen, we have now reached the absolute apex of nihilism. If the conjecture that some things exist and others do not is incorrect, then everything you can imagine must exist. Unicorns. Fairies. Zeus. Literally everything and anything. I deny this. There is a line between things that exist and those that do not. Rejecting this is simply silly. Rather akin to the four-year-old who incessantly queries her mother as to "why" something is, and then why that thing is, ad infinitum. Really. Some things exist. Others do not. This is true. Were it not true, then the "neon-green Ozzy Osbourne wearing only mismatched socks" that I've just fabricated in my imagination is indeed currently dancing atop your roof. Because, rejecting the aforementioned statement, there is nothing that doesn't exist. The sun and the existence of God are equally obvious to you? I'll refer you to this link, which you will hopefully understand with more ease than the previous one: Our Sun - Astronomy For Kids - KidsAstronomy.com I'll refer you to Mr. Osbourne, above. My mere say-so that the sun exists does not qualify as proof, quite correct. I never said that it did. Proof, however, tends to qualify as proof. Again, the heavily shortened list of ways we know the sun exists: "We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. " I'll add to that: "The gravitational pull that keeps us from hurtling into deep space, and the warmth that allows us to exist at all." The website URL proves nothing, that's correct. However, if you left-click the blue text, it should take you to a webpage that's just positively bursting with scientifically verified, well-substantiated information. Thus distinguishing it starkly from the web page that you've linked to. See, what you've said there is a common mistake. The idea that "science has been through massive upheavals several times before, and thus is equally likely to go through another such event at any time, possibly disproving much of what we know." Science is not equally likely to have everything it knows turned on its head as it has been in the past. This is due to the fact that science is a process that constantly betters itself, expands in its areas of expertise, and grows exponentially. Again, contrasting starkly with most religious mechanisms. Failing to see the evidence most certainly does not make that evidence go away. Absolutely true. Really, quite a true statement. I might recommend reading over that statement a few more times, and just letting it sink in. You command me to "prove it" and demand to see my evidence. But when I kindly ask for yours, you say "go look over there, I'm sure it's around here somewhere." Hardly seems fair. Actually, it seems like what a debate student would call an "evasion". Always so quick to defeat those vicious men of straw, aren't you? First off, acupuncture and voodoo are most emphatically not science. They're dogma and superstition. Secondly, science does not depend on your birthplace. What you learn of science is up to you. Your failure to grasp the facts does not change the reality. So it is with religion. The "right" religion could be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Animism, polytheistic ancient religions, there could be no god at all, ad infinitum. However, your personal beliefs about that do not change what the "true" religion really is (if there is one). However, most religious people believe that they're right about the god question, that their religion is the correct one. But they can't all be right. Thus, the fact that this absolute certainty about the god question stems primarily from geography and nurturing environment is deeply troubling to Dr. Dawkins and many others. It's not 'riddled' with internal contradictions. You don't "hope" to arrive at a reasonably answer. If that's what you did in your Chemistry or Physics classes, then you've had some abominable professors. Given that the numbers work out nigh on every single time, it's more than vain "hope". Physics holds true for all we know. As does chemistry. Anatomy. Geology. Meteorology. The computer that you're using to view this does not function because someone hoped it would maybe work out. It's because they utilized what they know about science to construct a marvel of modern technology. Science is the best way to model and explore reality, failing in only a select few instances at the very edge of our current understanding. Even then it's working on these problems, making progress within said problems, and attempting to expand human horizons and knowledge at all times. But he is willing to do that! And does! He doesn't support any theories that he hasn't got good reason to support. And even if he didn't apply the same "yardstick" to science, how would that make those factual claims and points more akin to "it's stupid and I dislike it"? It's preposterous to propose that the meaning and veracity of his words changes dependent upon anything else he does. Let his points stand alone, deal with them, instead of evading the prompt with ad hominem attacks upon the man. (And they are ad hominem, as you're accusing him of being a hypocrite.) Reference my earlier discussions about "why some things exist and others don't" and "why the sun exists". I still cannot believe that I had to even write those arguments. Name calling certainly does not establish my argument. Good thing I didn't call you any names! Boy, that's a relief! I said that an idea was ludicrous. That's not "name-calling", my friend. Not in any sense. What? You've just spent several sentences daring me to prove that the sun exists, my friend. And now you're saying "of course it does". Well, I'm glad we've reached that stellar consensus. I've shown you my proofs. I'm still looking for yours. Assuming, that is, that you won't continue to apply your double-standard of evidencing my claims, but not yours. Reference earlier arguments: "why the sun exists" and "why things exist and others don't"." Sounds good to me! (Though I didn't discount language from everything, mind you. Just from relevance to whether or not things exist.) Excellent! Please let me know, with clarity and precision, where my logic fails and why. We'll be able to move along quite nicely with that! Merry Christmas! God Bless! OvisAries

After taking a few moments to shake off my astonishment at your comments and recenter myself, I've decided that there must have been a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere. Apologies, indeed. "Religion" is very vague. Let's be specific then, shall we? For your consideration, the Bible: http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png Oh dear. Yes, Mr. Vort, yes there is proof-positive that the sun and I exist. The sun and I can both by felt, seen, and otherwise detected in measurable ways. The sun and I can be demonstrated clearly and absolutely to have an effect on events outside of ourselves. The sun and I have both been demonstrated to manifest in meaningful ways that differentiate us from 'nothing'. The questionable veracity of that statement aside, what you've said is irrelevant. Either things exist or they don't. That is a fact. "Linguistic tokens" are irrelevant to the overwhelmingly obvious fact that there is a giant hydrogen fusion reactor in the sky that heats the earth, or to the existence or nonexistence of anything else for that matter. Again: things exist, or they don't. Again, there's extraordinarily overpowering evidence that the sun exists. And that I exist, for that matter. Again, both the sun and I manifest in ways that meaningfully differentiate us from 'nothing'. For further reference on how we know the sun exists, I'll refer you here: Solar System Exploration: Planets: Sun: Overview He bases his beliefs upon what he rationally knows and what he can reasonably justify to be true. He simply sees no evidence for the existence of a higher being. I, for one, am always interested in new pieces of evidence for our Lord and Savior. If you have some new pieces of evidence, upon which you surely base your rational, reasonable beliefs, please share. That would, indeed, make your perception equally reliable to Dr. Dawkins', if they shared a common base in reality. I'm sure the community at large would benefit from the sharing of any such evidence you have. Please, oblige us. Wow, judging by your comparison of my "nurture" type prevalence with a genetic trait, you've managed to miss my point by aeons. Apologies for not being more explicit. I was pointing out that people generally believe the religion in which they were brought up. Merely illustrating the fact that this "absolute divine truth about the universe" that is religion depends in large part upon the geography of your birth. For instance, if you had been born in India, you'd likely have been Hindu. Had you been born in Pakistan, you'd likely be a Muslim. In any of these situations, you would just know that your religion was the right one, as followers of religions usually do. Since they cannot all be correct, I was merely pointing out this glaring inconsistency as something that Dr. Dawkins finds to be counter to the existence of a higher power. Really? The ideas that there are a) historical and internal inaccuracies, b) no pieces of positive evidence, and c) indoctrination-based propagation all equate in your mind to Dr. Dawkins saying "it's stupid and I dislike it"? Don't be ridiculous, that's clearly not the case, my friend. None of those points have any connotations of personal dislike, they're all factual, quantifiable statements which give him, and many others, pause. To say that the only argument that Dr. Dawkins can make against religion is that "it's stupid and I dislike it" is patently ludicrous. As I've said before, the sun manifests in a meaningful way that differentiates it from nothing. We can measure electromagnetic radiation, heat, diameter, circumference, surface area, solar flare frequency, acceleration due to gravity, luminosity, photospheric composition, etcetera. To reiterate: the sun manifests in such a way as to meaningfully, quantifiable, and undoubtedly distinguish it from 'nothing'. I'm only being logical. And remember: God created logic. It'd be a shame for us to fail to grasp the basic principles and uses thereof. Shame indeed. Your fellow servant of Our Lord, OvisAries God Bless!

Oh, come now, that claim about their alleged lack of arguments against religion is patently untrue. I'll demonstrate this in particular with Dawkins. Here are just a few things he brings up: a) Religion is riddled with internal and historical contradictions, decimating the credibility thereof. b) There is no proof-positive for god. We've no more evidence for god than we do for fairies. He sees no positive evidence for the existence of a higher power. c) Religion tends to run in families. That is, we tend to have the religions of our parents. And it always just so happens to be the "right" religion. Curious, isn't it? If you'll notice, none of those are "it's stupid and I dislike it", nor remotely close. I'll end with a quote, summarizing one of Dawkins' arguments: "Anything for which we make a claim of existence must be demonstrated to manifest in a way that differentiates it from 'nothing'. Otherwise, what does it mean to exist, if things that are identical to 'nothing' are to be reasonably considered existent?" -Matt Dillahunty God Bless!