The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Sean]

Why yes I agree that it would be very intolerant and close-minded. So tell me more... I would like to hear more about these reprobates!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Dawkins believes in the mutiverse, but is prepared for it to be proved otherwise. Are you prepared to believe in the non existence of god?

Gob, should the non-existence of God be proven, then it would be more than foolish to continue to believe that God exists. So "yes" - but since truth cannot be disproven, I'm OK there.

That brings myself and Dawkins almost back to par but still leaves me ahead because there is more rational evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of his pathetic attempts to evade science by making up excuses. Or than there is for God's non-existence come to that.

Dawkins is Burpo

What happened to your little tag line then?

Meade

[loCAtek]

I would like to hear more about these reprobates!

Watch their posts, mate. They don't deny it,they obfuscate it.

[Sean]

So come on, name and shame them!

[loCAtek]

Wot, t'ws not my intent.

[Gob]

Gob, should the non-existence of God be proven, then it would be more than foolish to continue to believe that God exists. So "yes" - but since truth cannot be disproven, I'm OK there.

What "truth" cannot be disproven, there is no truth without proof, there is no proof of god, only belief, therefore god is not a truth..

That brings myself and Dawkins almost back to par but still leaves me ahead because there is more rational evidence for the existence of God

Meade

I must have missed that, where is there "rational evidence" for god? Do you have the ten commandment stones somewhere? Or the holy grail/gourd/sandal?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob, should the non-existence of God be proven, then it would be more than foolish to continue to believe that God exists. So "yes" - but since truth cannot be disproven, I'm OK there.

What "truth" cannot be disproven, there is no truth without proof, there is no proof of god, only belief, therefore god is not a truth..

That brings myself and Dawkins almost back to par but still leaves me ahead because there is more rational evidence for the existence of God
Meade

I must have missed that, where is there "rational evidence" for god? Do you have the ten commandment stones somewhere? Or the holy grail/gourd/sandal?

Ah such light-hearted railery!

(1) And do you need to prove that your wife loves you and is faithful? (I'd like to see Hen's reaction to your demand for proof! )There are many things you are entitled to believe without proof - for example you cannot prove the existence of other minds. You can only argue in favour of them.

(2) Stones, grails, sandal (thanks Brian) would prove nothing at all. Please don't curtail quotes; the statement was that there is more rational evidence for God than Dawkins faith-without-evidence for a multiverse.

To claim by implication that philosophers such as Geisler, Plantinga, Clark, C S Lewis, Schaefer, etc etc etc do not produce rational arguments is quite ridiculous.

I acknowledge that declaring Dawkins to be a brain-dead money-grubbing Burpo is a little unfair. To Burpo.

Meade

[Sean]

Wot, t'ws not my intent.

I think that people who make allegations should be prepared to back them up. If they can't/won't I for one will not give any credence to the allegations.

[Sean]

(1) And do you need to prove that your wife loves you and is faithful? (I'd like to see Hen's reaction to your demand for proof! )There are many things you are entitled to believe without proof - for example you cannot prove the existence of other minds. You can only argue in favour of them.

I think you are confusing 'truth' and 'trust' there mate...

(2) Stones, grails, sandal (thanks Brian) would prove nothing at all. Please don't curtail quotes; the statement was that there is more rational evidence for God than Dawkins faith-without-evidence for a multiverse.

To claim by implication that philosophers such as Geisler, Plantinga, Clark, C S Lewis, Schaefer, etc etc etc do not produce rational arguments is quite ridiculous.

I acknowledge that declaring Dawkins to be a brain-dead money-grubbing Burpo is a little unfair. To Burpo.

Meade

I would contend that arguments and evidence are two quite different beasties...

[Gob]

Ah such light-hearted railery!

It is, and thanks for taking it as such.

(1) And do you need to prove that your wife loves you and is faithful? (I'd like to see Hen's reaction to your demand for proof! )

Not at all, I need no proof, our day to day life, confirms it. However that does not mean that I am unaware that there is a chance (abet infinitesimally small) that she may not be.

There are many things you are entitled to believe without proof - for example you cannot prove the existence of other minds. You can only argue in favour of them.

True, but science would at least substantiate that something outside of my ability to touch and feel it, such as a mind may exist. There will never be any proof of god's existence/non-existence until I die. And even then, maybe not.

(2) Stones, grails, sandal (thanks Brian) would prove nothing at all. Please don't curtail quotes; the statement was that there is more rational evidence for God than Dawkins faith-without-evidence for a multiverse.

Mea culpa, that was not good editing.

To claim by implication that philosophers such as Geisler, Plantinga, Clark, C S Lewis, Schaefer, etc etc etc do not produce rational arguments is quite ridiculous.

I'll bow to your erudition there mate, care to present one of these arguments, I'd be interested in reading some.

I acknowledge that declaring Dawkins to be a brain-dead money-grubbing Burpo is a little unfair. To Burpo.

Meade

Come off it, Burpo is prostituting his child's innocence (possibly with good intent) to sell his snake oil. Dawkins is his own man.

Thanks for a good debate BTW.

[loCAtek]

Wot, t'ws not my intent.

I think that people who make allegations should be prepared to back them up. If they can't/won't I for one will not give any credence to the allegations.

I'm prepared, it's just not my place to place blame on anyone. That would be rude and inconsiderate,

[thestoat]

the statement was that there is more rational evidence for God than Dawkins faith-without-evidence for a multiverse.

Errr - not true at all. There is plenty of evidence for a multiverse - it is why it currently holds so many scientists' attention. Evidence. They cannot prove it (maybe they can mathematically) - but there is plenty of rational evidence for it, so you are dead wrong there. As for rational evidence about god - that is hugely subjective. I don't believe the "evidence" of god is rational at all - it can and has been explained in other ways. Current physical and mathematical evidence about a multiverse has not been explained another way (yet) - apart from the standard "god did it". To my mind, saying "god did it" to any observable phenomena is not rational evidence

[Sean]

Wot, t'ws not my intent.

I think that people who make allegations should be prepared to back them up. If they can't/won't I for one will not give any credence to the allegations.

I'm prepared, it's just not my place to place blame on anyone. That would be rude and inconsiderate,

So you are not prepared... or you're using a cop-out. Either way spells the same thing to me...

Funny how it's not rude and inconsiderate in your eyes to throw out unsubstantiated allegations...

[Crackpot]

the statement was that there is more rational evidence for God than Dawkins faith-without-evidence for a multiverse.

Errr - not true at all. There is plenty of evidence for a multiverse - it is why it currently holds so many scientists' attention. Evidence. They cannot prove it (maybe they can mathematically) - but there is plenty of rational evidence for it, so you are dead wrong there. As for rational evidence about god - that is hugely subjective. I don't believe the "evidence" of god is rational at all - it can and has been explained in other ways. Current physical and mathematical evidence about a multiverse has not been explained another way (yet) - apart from the standard "god did it". To my mind, saying "god did it" to any observable phenomena is not rational evidence

There is evidence of "other universes" but a at this point the "multiverse" as described is pretty much wishful thinking.

[thestoat]

There is evidence of "other universes" but a at this point the "multiverse" as described is pretty much wishful thinking.

The multiverse is "other universes". That is where the "multi" comes from ...

[loCAtek]

Funny how it's not rude and inconsiderate in your eyes to throw out unsubstantiated allegations...

Well, I asked rather than assumed and received insults; at least that was better than evasion by ignore. A direct answer would by better, but still, flustering speaks volumes about close-mindedness. I'm ready to stand corrected.

[loCAtek]

Gob, should the non-existence of God be proven, then it would be more than foolish to continue to believe that God exists. So "yes" - but since truth cannot be disproven, I'm OK there.

What "truth" cannot be disproven, there is no truth without proof...

Not exactly;

Zen Koans are not rational questions with final linear conclusions. They are especially designed for one purpose; this purpose is to open the mind that has been closed by habitual responses to the world and reality.

...

For example, scientific authorities state that there is a law of gravity and that time is linear and proceeds form one second to the next. These "truths" are supported and bolstered by schools, society and our peers until they become unquestionable fact. This also applies to our ideas of human personality and of ourselves. Change then becomes an almost impossible task within the framework of conventional society.


...

However, science has already placed question marks next to the accepted facts of western society. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics are just two examples. The purpose of Zen Koans is to upset or dislocate the mind from these habitual ideas of reality and open the mind to the other possibilities and, eventually, to Satori or knowledge of reality. Zen


The following is an example of a Zen Koan.

The Monk Mayo asked this question of the Sixth patriarch: "What is Zen?" the Patriarch replied that, "when your mind is not dwelling on the dualism of good and evil, what is your original face before you were born?"

This question seems nonsensical, but this is only so when measured against the linear logical requirements of society. The question is intended to open the initiated mind to possibilities beyond the rational. It is also designed so as to waken the student to the possibility that spiritual answers require a different mode of thought.


Zen master Dogen had a saying that is appropriate in the present context. He said that in order to perceive reality we must "drop mind and body". In other words, it is essential to drop all habits of thought and preconceptions in order to understand the truth. The Koan forces the student to face this type of thinking. The answer to the question " what is your original face before you were born?" cannot be answered on the level of rational logic. It points towards the possibility of knowing or understanding without the constructs of reason and habitual response. The question suggests we have to approach spiritual reality as if we had knowledge of things before we were taught the ways of thinking of this world: in other words, " before we were born".

In trying to answer the Koan, the student will come to a mental "precipice", as it were, where all the methods and procedures of accepted thinking no longer function. The purpose of the Koan is to shove the student over this precipice into an area of experience that is completely new. This is the spiritual reality that the Zen master is attempting to guide the student towards.


Zen Koans

[thestoat]

I found this piece that I think neatly expresses my view on this:

Richard Dawkins, however, remains unmoved. Is there a limit to what science can explain? Very possibly. But in that case, what on earth makes anyone think religion can do any better? "I once reached this point when I asked the then professor of astrophysics at Oxford to explain the origin of the universe to me," he says. "He did so, and I posed my supplementary: 'Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?' He smiled: 'Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain.' My immediate thought was, 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse."

[loCAtek]

Well, spiritual religion does acknowledge the infinite and eternal. Death is not the end.

[Lord Jim]

Richard Dawkins, however, remains unmoved.

What does he have to do with this?





Oh, you said Dawkins....

I thought you said Dawson....

My mistake....