Though that shouldn't stop science from trying to glimpse into infra-everything, like galactic centers in invisible wavelengths, or the sounds of earthquakes. But we can never really know what it's like to smell with a dog's nose for instance. How is it to instantly clue into where someone's been, their mood, if they have cancer, what they had for lunch, and that they have a cat, a male cat with dandruff? I guess we can try to utilize other methods...we might be able to see someone has sandy feet (so they came from the beach), is smiling (happy), with dark freckles (melanoma), and a chili stain (hot dog) on their corny picture t-shirt of their cat, "Bruce". But we'll still assume the da...

Though that shouldn't stop science from trying to glimpse into infra-everything, like galactic centers in invisible wavelengths, or the sounds of earthquakes. But we can never really know what it's like to smell with a dog's nose for instance. How is it to instantly clue into where someone's been, their mood, if they have cancer, what they had for lunch, and that they have a cat, a male cat with dandruff? I guess we can try to utilize other methods...we might be able to see someone has sandy feet (so they came from the beach), is smiling (happy), with dark freckles (melanoma), and a chili stain (hot dog) on their corny picture t-shirt of their cat, "Bruce". But we'll still assume the dandruff is theirs. I don't know where that came from but it was fun to ponder.

The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover.

That's a false assertion. (I think they call it "straw man".)

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant showed that this premise is false.

Exactly. So why did he assume atheists (or anyone else) claims it? He is attributing a known false premise to a group (atheist).

Instead, it should read: "human beings can continually find out more and more." Period. It shouldn't be "until there is nothing left to learn." There is ALWAYS more to learn.

Now, in what way does any of this validate faith as me...

The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover.

That's a false assertion. (I think they call it "straw man".)

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant showed that this premise is false.

Exactly. So why did he assume atheists (or anyone else) claims it? He is attributing a known false premise to a group (atheist).

Instead, it should read: "human beings can continually find out more and more." Period. It shouldn't be "until there is nothing left to learn." There is ALWAYS more to learn.

Now, in what way does any of this validate faith as means of learning anything?

The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.

True. So where does faith come in? We can learn nothing through faith.

In this domain, Kant argues, the absence of evidence cannot be used as the evidence for absence.

True. But how does the absence of evidence argue FOR it?

If I have NO evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that support that there IS one?

To say "yes" is the world of the faithful. It is also the world of the irrational. Superstition is not knowledge. Maybe that's why atheists are smarter.

Believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear~ anon.

Seeing isn't everything! We live in a time where one must see all things to believe (which is not a bad thing!) ,but merely impossible at the state we are in.

I call those who doubt ....Curious! Which you have a right to be! But if there is no evidence, you can't be like ooo it doesn't exist! Evidence is what one collects to prove something right ....Now how does one collect evidence on something way above intellect and technology (artificial intelligence) or even comprehension?

You atheist have a weird way of arguing anyways you play with semantics and twist things. The way an atheist fights is almost condescending and ...

Believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear~ anon.

Seeing isn't everything! We live in a time where one must see all things to believe (which is not a bad thing!) ,but merely impossible at the state we are in.

I call those who doubt ....Curious! Which you have a right to be! But if there is no evidence, you can't be like ooo it doesn't exist! Evidence is what one collects to prove something right ....Now how does one collect evidence on something way above intellect and technology (artificial intelligence) or even comprehension?

You atheist have a weird way of arguing anyways you play with semantics and twist things. The way an atheist fights is almost condescending and childish! You use things like the spaghetti monster as your examples and other childrens tale.

Atheists aren't smater because they choose to not believe, they are however cynical!

Now Humans in general can not understand all things let alone comprehend that we're not the only beings in this universe, or that there is a higher being or unexplainables.We are a piece of a picture that is ever growing and changing (space and time). There's however more that meets the eye then the object in question.

Why is it there are more whys then there are answers anyways?

So what......So what if someone finds God and everything, and all the missing pieces, then what? We go find God and ask him rediculous questions and beg him to do our biddings and cure and etc. etc. We humans cease to be satisfied which will one day lead to our downfall as one race! To much of a good anything is bad! To gain all knowlegde would be a burden anyways... to do so or even attempt to rule the heavens, all earth (nature) etc. control or even try to comprehand all things would be impossible and the use of this vast knowledge to contain, rule would have nasty results !

But if there is no evidence, you can't be like ooo it doesn't exist!

Exactly. But if there is no evidence, you certainly can't be like, oooo, therefore it exist.

"Evidence is what one collects to prove something right "

Only if you're concerned with confirming your own bias. Evidence is more efficient when it is used to prove something wrong, like an assumption or theory.

"....Now how does one collect evidence on something way above intellect and technology (artificial intelligence) or even comprehension?"

Evidence of what? The very question assumes information (something above intellect, etc.) about a non proven thing for which no evid...

But if there is no evidence, you can't be like ooo it doesn't exist!

Exactly. But if there is no evidence, you certainly can't be like, oooo, therefore it exist.

"Evidence is what one collects to prove something right "

Only if you're concerned with confirming your own bias. Evidence is more efficient when it is used to prove something wrong, like an assumption or theory.

"....Now how does one collect evidence on something way above intellect and technology (artificial intelligence) or even comprehension?"

Evidence of what? The very question assumes information (something above intellect, etc.) about a non proven thing for which no evidence about it can be collected.

"You atheist have a weird way of arguing anyways you play with semantics and twist things."

Let's not use ad hominem; after all, your question above is saturated with embedded logical fallacies. I saw no need to point out each. Only to show that you assumed information you admit "in" the question it is impossible to obtain! (I'm afraid you are guilty of what you've just charged to atheists.)

"Atheists aren't smater because they choose to not believe, they are however cynical!"

Anyone who requires evidence before blind belief is generally less gullible. Smarter? That depends on lots of things.

"To gain all knowlegde would be a burden anyways... "

To remain dumb is better? Is that why education has less value to the superstitious, the dogmatic, and the blind faithful? They shun real information when it conflicts with their beliefs.

What is the purpose of knowledge if not to improve our lot in the world? What exactly is the purpose (or advantage) of being dumb?

Please explain this.

In what way does faith require adherence to logic?

I cannot speak for all faiths but Christian Apologetics responds to the Christian directive to give an accounting for our belief. Christian Apologetics is driven by logic, theology, and philosophy. The source of all truth is found in the fact that God is not the author of confusion and natural revelation is not disguised.

And in what way does faith embrace scientific truths?

Well, it would be quite a lack of faith not to. Don't you think? There is nothing the science will ever know that will disprove the existence of God because God cannot be disproved any more than God can be proved. The Bible even tells us t...

In what way does faith require adherence to logic?

I cannot speak for all faiths but Christian Apologetics responds to the Christian directive to give an accounting for our belief. Christian Apologetics is driven by logic, theology, and philosophy. The source of all truth is found in the fact that God is not the author of confusion and natural revelation is not disguised.

And in what way does faith embrace scientific truths?

Well, it would be quite a lack of faith not to. Don't you think? There is nothing the science will ever know that will disprove the existence of God because God cannot be disproved any more than God can be proved. The Bible even tells us to test everything and hold to that which is true.

Absolutely, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On first order. But is it reasonable to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or to believe in the great spaghetti monster? They are ridiculous off-hand, yet you equate them to the same level through your argument.

Once again the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And it is worth remembering that the immaterial cannot be disproved using science because science is focused on the material.

That there may be an immaterial (spirit) that underlies the universe is universal to human societies. That may just be a behavior that is based in the material world through evolution, that would be the scien...

Absolutely, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On first order. But is it reasonable to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or to believe in the great spaghetti monster? They are ridiculous off-hand, yet you equate them to the same level through your argument.

Once again the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And it is worth remembering that the immaterial cannot be disproved using science because science is focused on the material.

That there may be an immaterial (spirit) that underlies the universe is universal to human societies. That may just be a behavior that is based in the material world through evolution, that would be the scientific explanation.

If there is one thing that the study of nature has taught me, is that there is a fair amount of dualism in nature such as wave-particle duality. Then perhaps this conflict between faith and science is just our need define and categorize everything. If we instead can just groc that the universe is both material and immaterial at the same time, then much of that conflict dissipates.

@abailart

Love is textured by belief, and it is on a different logical level than the world of 'rational evidence' so it cannot logically be a contradiction with it. It is not with it but somehwhere else.

"It cannot logically be a contradiction with it"? I'm not sure I understand what that means. Symbolically, it can both confirm as well as contradict in the world of 'rational evidence'.

Love is not so much on a different logical level, as it is a different ' thing '.

Love is an emotion; a subjective feeling, existing entirely within the organism as subjective experience. It's existence is limited entirely to the individual. That is to say, it is self generated and self c...

@abailart

Love is textured by belief, and it is on a different logical level than the world of 'rational evidence' so it cannot logically be a contradiction with it. It is not with it but somehwhere else.

"It cannot logically be a contradiction with it"? I'm not sure I understand what that means. Symbolically, it can both confirm as well as contradict in the world of 'rational evidence'.

Love is not so much on a different logical level, as it is a different ' thing '.

Love is an emotion; a subjective feeling, existing entirely within the organism as subjective experience. It's existence is limited entirely to the individual. That is to say, it is self generated and self contained.

It "can" however have symbolic reference to the external world of "rational evidence". I can't experience yours and you can't experience mine; but we can talk about it with minimum understanding of what we're talking about.

We symbolize it as a "thing". It becomes a make-believe object. We can then subject that object to the logical world of "rational evidence".

In that sense, it may very well exist subject to the world of rational evidence without contradiction. The object "itself" may not exist, but we can process the "symbol" through the process of logic.

"I love you" would be a perfect example. "I" and "you" are actual objects. "Love" is the symbol (pretend object) we use to describe an emotional feeling. We can "at best" suppose the other person understands the feeling (we call love) as we do.

They may, however, experience it as something completely different! Or they may have never experienced it at all. YOUR object has no external existence. Neither does theirs.

Your obsession revealed in your clips actually says more than you know. For example, I do not believe in flying teapots but you do not see me clipping ad that reveal my lack of faith in flying teapots.

Can you* imagine having to live in a world where the majority DO believe in Flying Teapots, build at least three or more temples in even the smallest of towns to worship Flying Teapots, insist you accept the son of a Flying Teapot who they claim once was born into a human body 2000 years ago as your personal savior or spend eternity in a lake of fire, look at you as a monster if you let slip or reveal that you don't believe in Flying Teapots, stop trusting you, fear you, or te...

Your obsession revealed in your clips actually says more than you know. For example, I do not believe in flying teapots but you do not see me clipping ad that reveal my lack of faith in flying teapots.

Can you* imagine having to live in a world where the majority DO believe in Flying Teapots, build at least three or more temples in even the smallest of towns to worship Flying Teapots, insist you accept the son of a Flying Teapot who they claim once was born into a human body 2000 years ago as your personal savior or spend eternity in a lake of fire, look at you as a monster if you let slip or reveal that you don't believe in Flying Teapots, stop trusting you, fear you, or terminate your employment or not hire you or allow you near their children because you see not reason to presume Flying Teapots exist, use currency printed with "In Flying Teapots We Trust", have your national anthem include "one nation under Flying Teapots", have wars fought against countries that choose not to worship Flying Teapots, etc. etc. etc., do you think you might appear a bit "obsessed"?

Does it sound like a sci-fi horror flick? Modern Christians have no concept of the discrimination and persecution we live with, at their hands.

If you finally admit there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know, please stop sitting in judgement of those of us that don't claim to be certain about the existence of a deity its nature and attitude and authority over us.

* the generic you