omg i never knew something like that existed...huh--now that i think about it it makes total sense...crazy!

The challenge (the one I proposed initially) was to prove that our senses work, not how they worked (if that's what vlad's implying).  And that  (the former) cannot be done, because that would involve us using our senses to make observations about our senses, which we couldn't do yet because we haven't proven that they work.

BTW Meso, I salute you in your effort to raise your daughter the the best of your ability. Keep at it. You are a cooler head than I am. I would have been more aggressive earlier in this thread if I was in your shoes.

Hold on...

Why would anyone ever need to "prove that our senses work"?  Our "senses" are our interactions with the world; they provide all of the information that we receive.

So, any argument either for or against our senses must rely on... evidence provided by our senses.

That means, if you make an argument against our senses, you will be basing that argument on an assumption that the evidence provided by your senses is correct.  Thus, any argument against the senses will be self-contradictory. (Though note: any argument for the validity of our senses will be consistent.)

The senses don't need to be proven--the fact that our senses work is apparent in everything that we say and do, and tacitly acknowledged even in those arguments that try to conclude that the senses don't work.

And, btw, does this have anything to do with the existence of a god, or why a thinking human being ought to believe in one?

You're absolutely right that the order in a deck of cards has a "reason"--the way it was shuffled, etc.

However, unless the person shuffling the cards is a sleight-of-hand artist, there isn't a purpose to the order of the cards--no intelligence has guided the final order.  Just as, if I were to throw a bag of flour into the air, every little bit would land some specific place for a "reason"--according to the laws of physics--but not according to a purpose.

"Random," when we discuss the order of honestly shuffled cards, or the exact layout of the flour spill, refers to this lack of purpose; a lack of intelligent design.

Thus, random is not a myth... it just doesn't mean "without reason" in the way you're talking about.

You only say it lacks a purpose only b/c you cant find one in there

Just b/c some cant be grasped by the humane mind does not mean it does not exist or isn’t there

For the longest time it was common knowledge that atoms were the smallest bit of matter, then we smashed one and found smaller pieces, but just b/c we didn’t know they were there didn’t mean that they didn’t exist

you call the flour on the floor “without purpose” only b/c you assume that it has none , but you don’t know really either way now do you?

Whoops!  I stand corrected.  But it's pretty self-evident that they do work.  We are communicating; I sense your input and you sense mine (unless you're a figment of my imagination, and even if you are I still sense you).  So obviously I have senses that work.  I see your post.

Exactly. You just gave a great reason for atheism I'll tell you how things worked back when people didn't know about electrons and protons, etc.:

Religious guy: Well, apparently we can't explain where atoms come from so it must be directly related to god.

Atheist: Err... well, maybe we just don't know yet. But we'll know in the future.

Religious guy: Yeah, that's what you guys always say...

I'll promise you one thing: As soon as we find out more about the current mysteries of life it will cause another wave of people leaving the church. Why? Because once more it will be obvious god didn't play a role in it. That's what happened in the past and that's what's gonna happen in the future

Oh and I hope you're not trying to imply that me showing you exactly those 13 cards has a deeper meaning... I'm sure it doesn't. And using this argument just at times when you like it (for you it does work for the cards but not for Hitler...) is a) not fair to people having a discussion to you and b) surely wouldn't be accepted by a lot of religious people themselves.

And isn't that the smart thing to do?  I mean, if someone said that there is "purpose" in the way the flour falls to the ground (meaning evidence of intelligence), I would expect that means that they can find purpose in it, right?

To that, I would say: "Excellent!  Show me the purpose you've found in the flour, so that I can see it too!"

Except I find that most people who claim that there is purpose (in flour, in shuffled cards, in the universe) can't point it out very well, or explain it.  Instead, they simply say that they "know" it's there, even if they can't describe it or demonstrate it, and that I should know it too... "somehow."

Eventually, I come to suspect that they haven't actually found purpose in the flour... they just want it to be there very badly.  And that's a position that I can sympathize with.  But I cannot base my worldview or my beliefs on what I want to be true.  I can only look at the flour on the floor and base my conclusions on what I see there.

If something cannot be grasped by the human mind, then we're all of us SOL, and shouldn't waste our time trying to figure it out or discuss it (because the "human mind" is the best tool that we've got).

Moreover, nobody should believe it, because "believing" something without understanding it is meaningless at best, and very dangerous at worst.

That's absolutely true.  But the reason we believe in smaller pieces today is because we've found them.  Which is how it's supposed to work.

We should believe in things after we find them--after we have evidence for them--not before.  That might not be a "perfect" system, but I think it's certainly better than believing in things for which there is no evidence, or believing in things that contradicts the available evidence.

Is there "purpose" in the flour?  Maybe.  But so far the evidence points to "no."  There's no good reason to believe that there's purpose in the flour, until we have some good evidence for it.

Sure I do, based on the evidence of my senses and my ability to reason.  The only way your "you don't know really either way now do you" works is if we try to discredit... everything.

And if we try to discredit all knowledge, then this all becomes absolutely meaningless and silly.  I mean, if one person argues for the Christian God, why can't I say to him: well, maybe you should be worshipping Zeus.  I mean, you don't know really either way now do you?

No.  People reach conclusions based on the available evidence--that's how it works, and how it ought to work, and what this is ultimately about.  I say that the available evidence says that there's no purpose to the flour, no Zeus, and no Yahweh.

If you think the evidence says otherwise, please enlighten me.  I'd love to know which god to worship before I die (I've heard that Hell is unpleasant).  But if your point is simply that no one can ever really know anything for sure... then it's not really helpful to anyone, or in support of any point of view (not even your own).

No problem.  But the question isn't answered by whether or not you have senses, or if you can sense; it's if they are trustworthy, or if they actually can communicate reality (at all).