Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

Thales of Miletus

No scientific method.

I didn't say ancient people didn't have speculations, or crafts, or accidental discoveries, or technologies of certain kinds, or magic, or superstitions...they even had mathematics, as Thales did. But the Scientific Revolution never happened for them, nor for their societies, because no systematic method of eliminating the false and focusing down on the scientifically accurate existed. For that, one had to have Bacon.

And eggs.

The rocketing-forward of human scientific achievements that created such rapid progress of technologies and industries as we see today is entirely due to the discovery of the scientific method. And the scientific method was possible because people expected order in nature, and laws, and they expected these things because they believed in a Lawgiver.

Bacon, by the way, was not merely a scientist. He was an ardent theologian. Read his essay "Of Truth," if you doubt it.

[MikeNovack]

Well ...... might go back a lot farther. Yes, our modern tradition if the scientific method easily traced to Bacon and his contemporaries. But you do need to keep in mind that we did not have access to the writings of Archimedes till the 19th Century (when realized what those palimpset pages were). I use this particular example because you are associating the scientific method with Christianity and this a clear case of the reverse, Christianity discarding/erasing science. Luckily, the erasure not completely successful.

It is common to attribute differences in religion. Thus at about the same time the Portuguese were exploring sea routes east the Chinese were ding the same to the west (and had reached Africa). But it was not a difference in religion causing the Portuguese to persist until they reached the Orient but that the Ming dynasty had problems with Mongol invaders, more urgent than expensive exploration to the west.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity discarding/erasing science.

Catholicism. Not Christianity.

Catholicism, because of its reliance on clergy, has a built-in authoritarianism. There's very good evidence of the link between the breaking of Catholic authoritarian privilege and the rise of science, actually. The Reformation was no small contributor to that story, because it taught that every man could be his own interpreter, and he didn't need clerical permission to think for himself.

[MikeNovack]

Christianity discarding/erasing science.

Catholicism. Not Christianity.

Sorry IC, but WHEN are suggesting was the start of Christianity? If you give the usual date, you cannot say "Catholicism not Christianity". Your brand of Christianity had not yet split off at the time that parchment was scraped and reused. Parchment being expensive, it was common to reuse parchment if what was written on it considered no longer of value.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity discarding/erasing science.

Catholicism. Not Christianity.

Sorry IC, but WHEN are suggesting was the start of Christianity?

Pentecost. Not 312 AD.

[MikeNovack]

Pentecost. Not 312 AD.

He's probably referring to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which took place between Constantine and Maxentius on 28 October AD 312. Determined control of Rome.

You mean the Pentecost after the first Easter, yes?

[Immanuel Can]

Pentecost. Not 312 AD.

He's probably referring to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which took place between Constantine and Maxentius on 28 October AD 312. Determined control of Rome.

Did you ever wonder where the term "Roman Catholic" came from?

You mean the Pentecost after the first Easter, yes?

I mean the Pentecost in Acts. There would be another three centuries before the Roman Catholic thing would ever be thought of, by anyone. But already, there was the church.

[MikeNovack]

I was intentionally proposing an example where the "other gods" were emanations of the one, of the some substance.

........
Is that your candidate for a "rational" polytheism?

I cannot proceed (with polytheism) until you give me a clear answer about the starting model, monotheist or polytheist. Assuming you say "monotheist", I will then slowly modify it step by step until you answer "polytheist". We can then discuss why you perceived a SUDDEN change to incoherence.

[Immanuel Can]

I was intentionally proposing an example where the "other gods" were emanations of the one, of the some substance.

........
Is that your candidate for a "rational" polytheism?

I cannot proceed (with polytheism) until you give me a clear answer about the starting model, monotheist or polytheist.

Yes you can. I gave you the definition, and one with wide latitude. You can pick your example, and make your case...if you can.

[MikeNovack]

I cannot proceed (with polytheism) until you give me a clear answer about the starting model, monotheist or polytheist.

Yes you can. I gave you the definition, and one with wide latitude. You can pick your example, and make your case...if you can.

You are missing the point of how I said I would proceed. Why are you resisting this incremental approach? Are you afraid that as the model is changed bit by bit from what you would consider "monotheism" (and coherent) to what went over the line into what you would consider "polytheism" you would be unable to explain why SUDDENLY (from that slight change) it has become incoherent? << you want to uphold "all polytheism is incoherent >>

Sorry IC, but I will not "jump" just to relieve you of that burden. When you claim "all polytheism" is incoherent you are claiming the equivalent of "the line between monotheism and polytheism is at the same point on the spectrum as between coherent and incoherent". Only by going step by step approaching and then crossing the line between monotheism and polytheism can it be determined if this is the case. And it has to be YOUR evaluation of where that line is, not mine << because I don't believe ALL polytheism is incoherent >>

If I did as you want, made a big jump far across the line clearly into polytheism and you said "incoherent" it would settle nothing. It would not rule out models in between that point and the line between monotheism and polytheism which you did not judge incoherent.

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot proceed (with polytheism) until you give me a clear answer about the starting model, monotheist or polytheist.

Yes you can. I gave you the definition, and one with wide latitude. You can pick your example, and make your case...if you can.

You are missing the point of how I said I would proceed.

No, I got it. You will not "proceed" at all. You'll throw up objection after objection, until I stop asking you the simple question for one single case wherein your claim of the rationality of polytheism can be evidenced.

But I'm still asking.

If you can't answer...it's only because there IS no rationally coherent polytheism that you know of. And I already know that's true.

[MikeNovack]

No, I got it. You will not "proceed" at all. You'll throw up objection after objection, until I stop asking you the simple question for one single case wherein your claim of the rationality of polytheism can be evidenced.

But I'm still asking.

If you can't answer...it's only because there IS no rationally coherent polytheism that you know of. And I already know that's true.

IC, the question is not whether I consider a model monotheist or polytheist but whether you do. Not whether I consider it coherent but whether you do. You have not yet clearly given an answer on the initial version of the model. Monotheist or polytheist, coherent or incoherent. It is based on your answer that I will present the next version of the model and ask the same questions. We are trying to discover where YOUR line is between monotheism and polytheism, between coherent and incoherent. Making a big jump from clearly monotheism to clearly polytheism does not help us discover where YOU draw the line.

Or is it the case that you believe there is such an obvious hard line it should be obvious to all? Remember, I essentially "stole" the initial model from Yazidism* because large members of people consider it monotheism and large numbers consider it polytheism. In other words, it is near the dividing line for hundreds of millions of people. So I don't KNOW what you feel about it until you tell me.

* While rather unknown, and usually not appearing in a standard list of "top 20 world religions by population", it should be (near the bottom of that list)

[Immanuel Can]

No, I got it. You will not "proceed" at all. You'll throw up objection after objection, until I stop asking you the simple question for one single case wherein your claim of the rationality of polytheism can be evidenced.

But I'm still asking.

If you can't answer...it's only because there IS no rationally coherent polytheism that you know of. And I already know that's true.

IC, the question is not whether I consider a model monotheist or polytheist but whether you do.

No, the question is whether you know even one case of polytheism that can be shown to be rational. And you don't, apparently.

Here's the simple problem: if I play your game, and try to list this or that polytheism, you'll just say, "Well, that's not real polytheism." Then you'll assure me there's another that's rational, but you'll leave it up to me to go and find it for you. And I'll end up playing "whack a mole" with every form of polytheism in the world, at which point, the game will continue forever.

OR you could just name and justify your own rational version of polytheism. And you'd win your point. And you'd change everybody's mind. With one brilliant stroke, it would all be over. No "whack-a-mole," no endless obfuscation: clarity, simplicity, and truth.

So we're going with path number 2. If you have a rational polytheism, name it. If you don't, then you don't.

You have not yet clearly given an answer on the initial version of the model.

Yes, I did. I showed reasons why polytheism is irrational. It's your turn. The ball has come back over the net, hard. If you've got a backhand, it's time to use it. If you don't, you whiff.

And that's it.

[Will Bouwman]

I didn't say ancient people didn't have speculations, or crafts, or accidental discoveries, or technologies of certain kinds, or magic, or superstitions...they even had mathematics, as Thales did. But the Scientific Revolution never happened for them, nor for their societies, because no systematic method of eliminating the false and focusing down on the scientifically accurate existed. For that, one had to have Bacon.

Can you give an example of something that is "scientifically accurate", and what makes it so?

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say ancient people didn't have speculations, or crafts, or accidental discoveries, or technologies of certain kinds, or magic, or superstitions...they even had mathematics, as Thales did. But the Scientific Revolution never happened for them, nor for their societies, because no systematic method of eliminating the false and focusing down on the scientifically accurate existed. For that, one had to have Bacon.

Can you give an example of something that is "scientifically accurate", and what makes it so?

"Scientifically accurate" simply refers to the fact that a given experiment has observed the formal requirements of the scientific method. It doesn't necessarily entail that the result is absolute or certain, but rather that it is highly probable, because the scientific method has been employed in order to generate the results.

You know the scientific method, I'm sure. It was probably taught to you by your 8th grade science teacher -- phenomenon, questioning, hypothesis, test design, selecting of subjects, finding of a control group, assemblage of equipment, test running, recording of observations, repeatability, criticism and hypothesis revision, retesting, submission to a scientific community, publication...and, of course, epistemic humility throughout, wherein the experimenter does not go beyond the parameters of his test or his data. That's what the scientific method requires.

This is its difference from, say, mere speculations, or magic, or preferences, or whatever. There is a discipline to the practice that reduces and eliminates elements that would taint the test or distract from objective measurement. But of course, the personal returns: one has to trust the scientist to be honest, humble and committed to recording the truth; one has to have critics in order to stress the findings; and before all that, it takes a human person to decide which phenomena are worthy of being tested...so the scientific method is really a form of mistake-reduction, but not of total elimination of the human. As such, it can only yield results probabilistically, and never quite absolutely, even at its best. And, of course, scientific accuracy can only apply to things that are amenable to the scientific method, such as material properties, not to abstractions (like morals, for example) or non-material entities (like consciousness, for example).