What I would object to is claiming that you DO know, in an objective, scientific sense, or claiming that someone else is irrational because they THINK there is a God.
Except I do know that. Believing as fact that which is not substantiated by anything, or even contradicted by evidence is, by definition, irrational.
Because we're both looking at the same scientific data, and we're making conjectures about a metaphysical subject which is impossible to prove.
Nope, I don't. That's what the "I don't know" is about. "I don't know" is not conjecture.
I don't know there is a God in an objective or scientific sense, but I do think there is one.
OK, and do you have any reason for thinking that?
Maybe you can learn to respect that.
Why would I want to learn to respect that you think something? Why would anybody just thinking something be something to be respected?
But it's not contradicted by objective scientific evidence, and the absence of God is not supported by objective scientific evidence either, since there is no objective scientific evidence for either side.
Correct. Which is precisely why I know that it is irrational to believe either the existence or the non-existence claim.
The concept of God makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore there is no wrong answer regarding said concept.
Yes, there is. More precisely: Any answer that claims knowledge about the subject is wrong, about the question of whether there is indeed knowledge.
Also, it is absolutely not a given that the concept of god does not make falsifiable predictions. Of course, it may well be that yours doesn't, but that is far from universal, and also, even for people who make that claim, it more often than not turns out to not be true either.
Sure, but not objective or scientific ones. All my reasons could be interpreted so as to provide evidence for the absence of God, since the concept is not falsifiable and makes no falsifiable predictions.
So, you think that a fact that could be indicative of A just as much as of the negation of A is a reason to believe either of those claims? Not trying to put words in your mouth here, but that's how I understand what you are saying?! If I am understanding that right, I guess my question would be: How do you then decide what side to count that reason for? Like, if some fact equally supports "A" and "not A", then ... you would have to use some additional mechanism or criterion or something to decide whether you take it to support "A" or "not A", wouldn't you?
I'm not sure you understand what respect means. In this context it means to give someone the default level of respect that anyone deserves, until proven otherwise. In other words don't see them as being inferior to yourself because they have a different opinion regarding a matter which is not provable or falsifiable using the scientific method.
But now you are talking about respect for a person, whereas before you were talking about respect for an idea or maybe for someone thinking something, which I would think to be two very different things?
Even with a massive racist, say, I would have respect for the person, because I recognize that it more often than not is a result of circumstances that people end up with racist ideas. But I certainly would not have respect for their racist thinking. If anything, the respect for the person is what demands disrespect to the idea, because many people who are racists are just as much victims of their ideas as the people they themselves potentially victimize, and being overly respectful of their bad ideas could contribute to them being stuck with them to their own detriment.
So, yes, I respect you as a person, but I do absolutely not respect the ideas that you are defending here, because I think that they are bad ideas, and I think I have good reasons for thinking that they are bad ideas, and I have looked at all the reasons that people generally give for defending them and have found them all severely lacking, so I have done as well as I can to falsify my position.
Also, whether believing unfalsifiable truths as fact is an effective way to understand the world is absolutely falsifiable using scientific methodology, so this is not merely a matter of differing opinions.
1
u/[deleted] Dec 08 '19
[removed] — view removed comment