LETS NOT..<<..sidestep rationally justifying the assumption.>>

SEEMS RATIONAL..on the face of things..as they appear to be
we can saY THAT men cAN FLY..but ignore that extra bit..in a plane.

I GUESS THATS JUST Assumed/presumed..because
MEN HAVE ALWAYS FLOWN..IN PLANES..thats the only way..men can fly.

tell that to the flying man..[rocKET-MAN?]

ANYHOW MY RATIONAL..post-cedent..to knowing gods reality
is via the words offered in writing..they..certainly..do not<<..sidestep rationally justifying the assumption.>>

BUT JUST BY THE PROOFS..*not OFFERED..HERE
THUS..evolution..>>sidestep's rationally justifying their assumption...WITH FACTS OR RATIONALITY]

at what stage does micro-evolution..ie [within species]..evolve into a new genus..?

its not roCKET SCIENCE..genus exta[outside]..its genus cant breed
even within genus..theiR ALLWAYS INFERTILE..OR FATAL

what proof the fossils 'evolved'[none are falsifyably links to nuthin

IN SHORT DONT CLAIM RATIONAL/faith..in luE OF FACT
IF YOU Had proof..you would present fact[but at best its a godless theory

<<..sidestep the rationally..*justifying the assumption...THat satanic demons war WALK..AMOUNG US?

how to awake the sleepers?

IE SCIENCE says..doctors heal?
or is it doctors who say science heals?

hang-on/they BOTH LIE

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/17/study-reveals-unavoidable-danger-hpv-vaccines/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/pharma-got-doctors-prescribe-risperdal-wellbutrin-bextra-neurontin-prempro/

http://xrepublic.tv/node/7059

yep even redirection
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/02/huge-amount-of-birth-defects-in.html

http://aviationintel.com/60-minutes-disgraceful-f-35-news-brochure/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/amazing-photos-of-mexican-drug-lords-home-and-23-billion-in-cash/

keep doubling up..till its sure tO HAPPEN?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/billionaire-george-soros-doubles-his-bet-that-the-market-is-heading-for-a-crash/

FIND YOUR OWN CURE
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Stang/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=77&year=14&month=2&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D77%26year%3D14%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss

WHERE IS THE LOVE..{?]

AJ Philips,

One can agree or disagree with the view that “what science can (potentially) investigate is all there is” (a reformulation of what I called the Sagan maxim) only after one understands what is meant by “potentially investigated by science” or briefly, what (natural) science “can know”.

I tried to describe this before, but it is all that science (and on the most fundamental level only through mathematics) can make meaningful statements about. This includes phlogiston, that nobody claims any more exists, quarks that are supposed to exist (although not in the obvious sense like that of the sun, that everybody understands) or the multiverse where the jury is still out. You can believe in a multiverse, you can believe in God: the former is a a scientific hypothesis subject to scientific investigation, the latter is not.

You cannot expect a child to understand this difference, and also past thinkers (I would say living before quantum physics came) including Hume could not have had this kind of delineation of science’s field of competence, explicitly involving mathematics. Of course, I cannot claim that this delineation is final, I am talking about the present understanding of what is natural science, not future. And not past: I am not a historian but I am sure that for Christians in the Middle Ages, and even beyond, the question of the existence of God was as simple (and usually equally affirmatively answered) as that of the sun.

Similarly for a child who will accept the existence of a strange animal if he/she is given a description he/she can understand (shown a picture of) and the same for religious concepts like God. Only gradually will the child understand that God is of a different nature than creatures he/she can see, and much, much later (if at all) the adult will understand what natural science is about, hence what “beyond its reach” means.

Thanks for the incentive that made me try to articulate my thoughts on this.
(ctd)

(ctd)

>>You try fit religious belief into this ‘a priori’ category<<

I did not mention religion there. I only argued that people can agree on what is and what is not evidence only if they have something to build their agreement or disagreement on. Only in trivial practice, e.g. in the court, “common sense” might suffice.

Scientists, (or mathematicians) who are theists can communicate, talk about evidence for this or that, with scientists (or mathematicians) who are atheists on matters of their common scientific interests. This is not the case when looking for "evidence" to believe or not in something that is independent of what science can judge (the exception being what is known as the problem of divine action that I tried to tackle in a separate article).

>> those who are born to sense that there is Something beyond the physical and mental, and those who are born to sense that the physical world is all that exists. <<

You are not born to sense anything, you BECOME a materialist or a Christian etc as a result of your life experience, which you evaluate rationally as well as emotionally and which, of course, involves education.

>>both positions are equally valid default positions<<
Yes, but not because you are born with them.

I SEE the big issue being defining what is meant..by god*
SO LETS look at the science term..'god*particle"..what is the god particlE..[a higgs boson]..WHAT IS A HIGGS BOSON..its the equiveLENT OF [X]..THE UNKOWN..theorised that 'it' must exist..AS THERE ISNT ENOUGH MATTER..to make e-mc2 work..

i think its even called darkmatter.=god particle[in theory]

so science will say..the god*part-icle..=dark matter

yet god is light..[light itself is unseen/
yet reveals the seeing..by the science called illumination..
so the opposite of light = dark..CAUSE IT DONT ILLUMINATE..it hides.

yet god is the light..light is a particle..called a photon
yet..PHOTONS ARE Released..in things called events..these are seen as waves ..THUS LOOK AT SAY A CANDEL

THE 'LIGHT'..is released by heat[itself unseen]
light comes in Different spectum..depending on the length of their waves..[themselves unsEEN..UNTILL THEY HIT ON A SAME WAVE..AnD SET OFF An oscillation wave..in synche..with the given colour ..of the revealed thing. [see sympathetic vibration]

BUT ALLREADY/YOU LOST..the seeing..but lets continue

see that there are..long striNGS OF LIGHT..THAT Formed mass
[as revealed by their colour specrum/WAVE LENGTH]..[its best explained AS BEING LIKE..BALL LIGHTENING..[BASICLY..A STRING..[strEam]..Of particles..THAT SOMEHOW FORMED A LOOP..that then rejoins..[to itself]..READ UP ON BALL LIGHTENING and YOU GRASP STRING THEORY.

but all satrings arnt/equal..some have longer..causal events
others bigger loops..but i see its pearl before swine[till science caN EXPLAIN..THE UNSEED OF DArkmatters..it cant see the light[only that which the light reveals.

aHH MEN..LORD FORGIVE ME..i see the way
yet lack the means to explain..that you reveal unto me

I KNOW THE CAUSE=YOU..THAT YOU ARE IN ME..NOT OF ME
i know im not you..i see ALL YOU DO..AND SIMPLY SAY YET again..THANKYOU...FOR THE INNER LIGHT BY WHICH YOU ALLOW ME THE SEEING.

Some fascinating discussions are going on here!

AJ, I never claimed or implied that any presupposition should be accepted without question. I was merely pointing out the complexities of analysing evidence and how we interact with it. In this context, your request for “worldview independent evidence” was unrealistic, if not impossible.

Regarding the assumption that non believers believe the cosmos is all there is, I’d simply ask whether the context is purely debating Does God Exist, or rather whether the discussion is actually more focused on finding the truth (note: Not mutually exclusive options, I realise). If the latter, you know as well as I do that 99.5% or more of self described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is.

Pericles, your analogy fails because it still smuggles in the assumption that there is a neutral worldview. I see no reason to accept that there is a neutral set of metaphysics, or a neutral philosophy of life. The only response I can really see to this is “Who says you need a view of things?”, to which I’d respond that it isn’t really a choice we have. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere.

On a semi related note, in the 1960’s a Russian cosmonaut went into space and smugly noted that he hadn’t found God. Of course he hadn’t. I wouldn’t expect Romeo and Juliet to stumble across Shakespeare in the attic either.

George,

<<Yes, [both positions are equally valid default positions] but not because you are born with them.>>

Actually, they're not. The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor.

Trav,

I wasn’t necessarily targeting you specifically.

<<I never claimed or implied that any presupposition should be accepted without question.>>

I was pre-empting a form of argument that I hear from time-to-time. Sorry if it came across like that.

<<I was merely pointing out the complexities of analysing evidence and how we interact with it. In this context, your request for “worldview independent evidence” was unrealistic, if not impossible.>>

Well, there are certain things such as water running downhill that I would consider pretty worldview-independent (and there’s no reason why anything that could qualify as a god couldn’t make themselves that self-evident). But if you consider a worldview to be so all-encompassing as to include something as simple as water running downhill, or the sun rising in the East, then fine; that’s why I showed you how we can still make a determination of what is reasonable to accept and what is not, even if we really are so trapped by our worldviews.

<<Regarding the assumption that non believers believe the cosmos is all there is, I’d simply ask whether the context is purely debating Does God Exist, or rather whether the discussion is actually more focused on finding the truth (note: Not mutually exclusive options, I realise).>>

It can be whatever context you like. It doesn’t change a thing.

<<<If the latter, you know as well as I do that 99.5% or more of self-described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is.>>

It doesn’t matter if it’s 100%. What matters is whether or not disbelief necessitates, or necessarily leads to, a belief that the cosmos is all that there is; and until it does, there is still a false dichotomy there.

You tried this line of reasoning here too (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15381#265807) and it doesn’t work. It is philosophically unsound and leads to all sorts of fallacious arguments such as the strawman and the red herring.