From: ijameson@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Iain Jameson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is there a god? It doesn't matter ...
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:54:57 GMT
Reply-To: ijameson@adelphi.oz.au (Iain Jameson)
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia

I did not get the original reply to my post.
Hopefully this will make sense.

In article <1992Apr1.032813.7551@rz-berlin.mpg.de> dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>
> -Iain:
>>evidence may not discredit theology, but only because the theologist
>>would try to argue that the evidence is part of gods plan.
>>How do you agrue with that? You cannot!
> -Jarek:
> And this seems to drive you mad: I CAN'T TOUCH THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again you have mis-understood.
I do not want to touch them, as you seem to think I do.
What I would like is some intelligent discussion/argument
which is impossible when theists do what I said above.
There is no information in that point of view, and it is therefore
worthless. It's too bad they cannot see that. That is what annoys
me.
> -Iain:
>>Don't tell me I need god, but don't know it. You have tried
>>that arguement (or a derivative of it) before, and it was rejected.
> -Jarek:
> But not disproven.

Your arrogance never fails to amaze me.
Since your arguement follows the `it's part of god's plan'
reasoning, it is worthless.
>
> -Iain:
>>The limits of knowledge have not made me aware of our faith. What it has
>>made me aware of are the limits of our knowledge. [...] I do not know the
>>limits of human underestanding. This is something I can never know [...]
> -Jarek:
> That's your problem. I'm not responsible for your logics.

Excellent Jarek. You claim that a lack of knowledge requires
faith in god, I show that it does not, and all you can say is `that's
my problem'?

-Someone else said (Ray I believe)
>>> Who said it was a problem? Some people enjoy the prospect of
>>>always learnign more...
-To which Jarek replied
> I said this. Iain's comment has nothing to do with learning more. Iain
> said at first that he is aware of the limits of our knowledge, and then
> he said that there's no limit of human understanding. I replied that I
> am not responsible for this logics. Understanding without knowledge?
> It's Iain's problem, not mine.
>
Wrong again Jarek. I said that there are limits on current knowledge,
which you would have realised if you had bothered to read what I said.
If memory serves me, your claim was that a lack of knowledge required a
belief in god. I replied that this was nonsense, giving weather
predictions as an example. We cannot predict the weather with any
reasonable accuracy beyond three days. This lack of knowledge does
not require that we belief in god, it means we do not yet understand
the mechanics of weather. This is a limit on our current understanding.
Who is to say that in one hundred years we will not know how weather
systems work? I don't know. That is a limit on my knowledge.

> -Iain:
>>Given past experience, I feel (believe?) that we have the
>>ability to know and understand a hell of a lot.
> -Jarek:
> Indeed, a hell of a lot. So what?

A meaningless reply. My statement, following from the above,
indicates that faith in god due to a lack of knowledge is
unnecessary. As we learn more, we push back the boundaries
of superstition, removing your god from the picture.

> -Iain:
>>You cannot prove religion wrong because it is set up that way.
> -Jarek:
> Exactly as you cannot prove atheism because it is set up that way.
> This "setup" means "metaphysics", my dear Iain.

Once again you show your lack of understanding.
I cannot remember what I was replying to, I think you or
someone else wanted us to show that religion was wrong.
You cannot because it is set up that way.
It's quite easy to show atheism is wrong. All you need to do
is get your god to say hi to us atheists.

Iain
Newsgroups: alt.atheism