CROSS POST from R/T: God is a scientific question.

[Deep13]

FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x186817

[Orrex]

1. Anyone who preaches the 'all reality is subjective' nonsense is a buffoon.

Even (especially) when they come into the Skeptics' Group to do it.

[Deep13]

2. Subjective reality must be the core of liberal theology.

Conservatives believe they have the one single reality. Liberal inclusiveness means that for every religion to be valid, they must all be right. Since they contradict each other, it must mean reality is subjective. Typical ass-backwards theological argument.

[Random_Australian]

3. What? Since when does a religion have to be correct for it to be valid?

I may be completely fine with people having whatever religion, but I do think they are wrong and have no qualms about saying so.

[realisticphish]

5. i hate the supposed "liberal PC sensitivity" stereotype

but let's be honest; a lot of us are. of course, so are a lot of conservatives, but that's besides the point.

a lot of woos don't want to offend anyone (or, in reality, are trying to keep themselves from being offended) and so embrace the PoMo viewpoint.

i.e.

"dude, crystal healing is bullshit"
-"well, i think that everyone's viewpoint is equal"

it's a way of side-stepping any criticism of their nonsense

[Random_Australian]

4. Eh, I think you could have attacked that better.

The best approach is determining "is there any evidence that something else, eg. miracles, have occured?" and then showing that to be no, and using that to show any statements about God are not meaningful.

You can't really get contradictions from something so nebulously redefineable.

[Deep13]

6. It's not nebulous.

God has a specific definition. And whether or not evidence exists to support it, it is still ultimately a scientific question.

[Random_Australian]

8. I was talking about it as a scientific question.

And as for the definition not being nebulous? Watch this:

"but any divine intervention would stop evolution from working"

Now, I say God caused one person's cancer to stop growing ten years ago. They were promplty hit by a bus and died, but oh well.

So really, it is only systematic divine intervention that would affect evolution.

My point was that it would have been more accurate to note that there is no evidence for anything being strange or out-of-whack with evolution, so there is no evidence. Then, you never would have needed

"When conditions are sufficiently known, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence"

because no evidence for something and a null hypothesis is all you need to choose which beliefs are rational and which are not.

Note: In case I was jumbling words a lot again, I just want to note that I am talking about delivering your argument in a more concise way, not changing your argument.

[trotsky]

7. That went as well as I thought it would.

"Nuh-UHHHH, my god is NOT testable, he is far more vast and undefinable than YOU think."

Same old same old.